OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among couples seeking fertility care and to identify the predictors of CAM use in this population. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight community and academic infertility practices. PATIENT(S): A total of 428 couples presenting for an infertility evaluation. INTERVENTION(S): Interviews and questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine therapy. RESULT(S): After 18 months of observation, 29% of the couples had utilized a CAM modality for treatment of infertility; 22% had tried acupuncture, 17% herbal therapy, 5% a form of body work, and 1% meditation. An annual household income of > or = $200,000 (odds ratio 2.8, relative to couples earning <$100,000), not achieving a pregnancy (odds ratio 2.3), and a positive attitude toward CAM use at baseline were independently associated with CAM use. CONCLUSION(S): A substantial minority of infertile couples use CAM treatments. CAM was chosen most commonly by wealthier couples, those not achieving a pregnancy, and those with a baseline belief in the effectiveness of CAM treatments. Copyright 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among couples seeking fertility care and to identify the predictors of CAM use in this population. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight community and academic infertility practices. PATIENT(S): A total of 428 couples presenting for an infertility evaluation. INTERVENTION(S): Interviews and questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine therapy. RESULT(S): After 18 months of observation, 29% of the couples had utilized a CAM modality for treatment of infertility; 22% had tried acupuncture, 17% herbal therapy, 5% a form of body work, and 1% meditation. An annual household income of > or = $200,000 (odds ratio 2.8, relative to couples earning <$100,000), not achieving a pregnancy (odds ratio 2.3), and a positive attitude toward CAM use at baseline were independently associated with CAM use. CONCLUSION(S): A substantial minority of infertile couples use CAM treatments. CAM was chosen most commonly by wealthier couples, those not achieving a pregnancy, and those with a baseline belief in the effectiveness of CAM treatments. Copyright 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Lisa M Pastore; Christopher D Williams; Jeffrey Jenkins; James T Patrie Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Patricia Katz; Jonathan Showstack; James F Smith; Robert D Nachtigall; Susan G Millstein; Holly Wing; Michael L Eisenberg; Lauri A Pasch; Mary S Croughan; Nancy Adler Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Lee E Hullender Rubin; Michael S Opsahl; Klaus E Wiemer; Scott D Mist; Aaron B Caughey Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Lee E Hullender Rubin; Michael S Opsahl; Lisa Taylor-Swanson; Deborah L Ackerman Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 2.579