OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rates, pattern, satisfaction with, and presence of predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in a clinical population of patients with cluster headache (CH). DESIGN AND SETTING: One hundred CH patients attending one of three headache clinics were asked to undergo a physician-administered structured interview designed to gather information on CAM use. RESULTS: Past use of CAM therapies was reported by 29% of the patients surveyed, with 10% having used CAM in the previous year. Only 8% of the therapies used were perceived as effective, while a partial effectiveness was reported in 28% of CAM treatments. The most common source of recommendation of CAM was a friend or relative (54%). Approximately 62% of CAM users had not informed their medical doctors of their CAM use. The most common reason for deciding to try a CAM therapy was that it offered a "potential improvement of headache" (44.8%). Univariate analysis showed that CAM users had a higher income, had a higher lifetime number of conventional medical doctor visits, had consulted more headache specialists, had a higher number of CH attacks per year, and had a significantly higher proportion of chronic CH versus episodic CH. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed and two variables remained as significant predictors of CAM use: income level (OR=5.7, CI=1.6-9.1, p=0.01), and number of attacks per year (OR=3.08, CI=1.64-6.7, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CH patients, in their need of and quest for care, seek and explore both conventional and CAM approaches, even though only a very small minority finds them very satisfactory.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rates, pattern, satisfaction with, and presence of predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in a clinical population of patients with cluster headache (CH). DESIGN AND SETTING: One hundred CH patients attending one of three headache clinics were asked to undergo a physician-administered structured interview designed to gather information on CAM use. RESULTS: Past use of CAM therapies was reported by 29% of the patients surveyed, with 10% having used CAM in the previous year. Only 8% of the therapies used were perceived as effective, while a partial effectiveness was reported in 28% of CAM treatments. The most common source of recommendation of CAM was a friend or relative (54%). Approximately 62% of CAM users had not informed their medical doctors of their CAM use. The most common reason for deciding to try a CAM therapy was that it offered a "potential improvement of headache" (44.8%). Univariate analysis showed that CAM users had a higher income, had a higher lifetime number of conventional medical doctor visits, had consulted more headache specialists, had a higher number of CH attacks per year, and had a significantly higher proportion of chronic CH versus episodic CH. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed and two variables remained as significant predictors of CAM use: income level (OR=5.7, CI=1.6-9.1, p=0.01), and number of attacks per year (OR=3.08, CI=1.64-6.7, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CH patients, in their need of and quest for care, seek and explore both conventional and CAM approaches, even though only a very small minority finds them very satisfactory.
Authors: Rebecca Erwin Wells; Suzanne M Bertisch; Catherine Buettner; Russell S Phillips; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: Headache Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Cherubino Di Lorenzo; Gianluca Coppola; Martina Bracaglia; Davide Di Lenola; Maurizio Evangelista; Giulio Sirianni; Paolo Rossi; Giorgio Di Lorenzo; Mariano Serrao; Vincenzo Parisi; Francesco Pierelli Journal: J Headache Pain Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 7.277
Authors: Ilse F de Coo; Willemijn C Naber; Leopoldine A Wilbrink; Joost Haan; Michel D Ferrari; Rolf Fronczek Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 6.292