Christopher P Alderman1, Barbara Kiepfer. 1. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmaceutical, Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, University of South Australia, Daw Park, South Australia, Australia. chris.alderman@rgh.sa.gov.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complementary medicine (CM) usage continues to grow in popularity and is now widespread in many cultures throughout the world. Even so, detailed research addressing the use of many of these products in specific populations has yet to be undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To investigate CM usage among patients treated in an Australian psychiatry unit and to assess fundamental attitudes and beliefs regarding CM in this cohort. METHODS: Fifty-two patients were recruited from the department of psychiatry of an Australian teaching hospital. Forty-eight subjects were men, 4 were women, and the mean +/- SD age of subjects was 56.7 +/- 9.1 years. Structured interviews were conducted to obtain details of the extent of CM use, usage patterns, reasons for use, and general perceptions about CM. The questionnaire also elicited information about the subjects' past medical and psychiatric history, prescribed medication, and substance use. Satisfaction with conventional drugs and CMs was measured using visual analog scales. Responses to a series of structured statements were used to assess attitudes and beliefs about complementary therapies. RESULTS: Eighty-five CM treatments had been used by 27 (51.9%) subjects during the preceding 6 months, and 18 subjects were current CM users (44 items). The most common products taken were vitamins and minerals (n = 18) and herbal medicines (n = 14). Use of CM products was not related to demographic or medical factors, but was significantly less frequent among patients seeing their local physician >1 time per month. Only 17 of the respondents using CMs (63.0%) informed their physician about these therapies. Daily users of CMs ranked their satisfaction level with these products significantly higher (mean satisfaction score 79.0 +/- 21.9) than with conventional therapies (62.9 +/- 26.8). The attitude toward CMs was positive overall, and was slightly more favorable among users than nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insight into the nature of CM usage in an Australian population of psychiatry patients. As this and other studies have revealed extensive use of CM products in various populations, healthcare providers should take this into account and include this issue in discussions with patients.
BACKGROUND: Complementary medicine (CM) usage continues to grow in popularity and is now widespread in many cultures throughout the world. Even so, detailed research addressing the use of many of these products in specific populations has yet to be undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To investigate CM usage among patients treated in an Australian psychiatry unit and to assess fundamental attitudes and beliefs regarding CM in this cohort. METHODS: Fifty-two patients were recruited from the department of psychiatry of an Australian teaching hospital. Forty-eight subjects were men, 4 were women, and the mean +/- SD age of subjects was 56.7 +/- 9.1 years. Structured interviews were conducted to obtain details of the extent of CM use, usage patterns, reasons for use, and general perceptions about CM. The questionnaire also elicited information about the subjects' past medical and psychiatric history, prescribed medication, and substance use. Satisfaction with conventional drugs and CMs was measured using visual analog scales. Responses to a series of structured statements were used to assess attitudes and beliefs about complementary therapies. RESULTS: Eighty-five CM treatments had been used by 27 (51.9%) subjects during the preceding 6 months, and 18 subjects were current CM users (44 items). The most common products taken were vitamins and minerals (n = 18) and herbal medicines (n = 14). Use of CM products was not related to demographic or medical factors, but was significantly less frequent among patients seeing their local physician >1 time per month. Only 17 of the respondents using CMs (63.0%) informed their physician about these therapies. Daily users of CMs ranked their satisfaction level with these products significantly higher (mean satisfaction score 79.0 +/- 21.9) than with conventional therapies (62.9 +/- 26.8). The attitude toward CMs was positive overall, and was slightly more favorable among users than nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insight into the nature of CM usage in an Australian population of psychiatry patients. As this and other studies have revealed extensive use of CM products in various populations, healthcare providers should take this into account and include this issue in discussions with patients.