Dana Fennell1, Ana S Q Liberato, Barbara Zsembik. 1. University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, 118 College Drive #5074, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001, USA. dana.fennell@usm.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: CAM is a socially constructed concept, and the literature on CAM definitions and patterns of use illustrates problems centering on the conceptualization and operationalization of "CAM." This renders it hard for researchers to truly understand CAM use patterns by the public. We use pilot data to explore lay conceptions of "CAM," and methodological approaches to capturing CAM usage. METHODS: Our pilot data come from surveys and journals of undergraduates, yielding direct and indirect measures of levels and patterns of CAM use. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The free listing method is a way to methodologically get around cultural bias and other problems conceptualizing CAM. Our pilot data suggest the public may have trouble conceptualizing CAM, and that survey construction does affect the richness of data on CAM use. Asking respondents direct measures of CAM modalities through surveys yielded the richest data.
INTRODUCTION:CAM is a socially constructed concept, and the literature on CAM definitions and patterns of use illustrates problems centering on the conceptualization and operationalization of "CAM." This renders it hard for researchers to truly understand CAM use patterns by the public. We use pilot data to explore lay conceptions of "CAM," and methodological approaches to capturing CAM usage. METHODS: Our pilot data come from surveys and journals of undergraduates, yielding direct and indirect measures of levels and patterns of CAM use. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The free listing method is a way to methodologically get around cultural bias and other problems conceptualizing CAM. Our pilot data suggest the public may have trouble conceptualizing CAM, and that survey construction does affect the richness of data on CAM use. Asking respondents direct measures of CAM modalities through surveys yielded the richest data.
Authors: Steva A Komeh-Nkrumah; Siddaraju M Nanjundaiah; Rajesh Rajaiah; Hua Yu; Kamal D Moudgil Journal: Phytother Res Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 5.878
Authors: Karine Toupin April; Jennifer Stinson; Heather Boon; Ciarán M Duffy; Adam M Huber; Michele Gibbon; Martin Descarreaux; Lynn Spiegel; Sunita Vohra; Peter Tugwell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240