OBJECTIVES: Users of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CM) and biomedicine (BM) are commonly assumed to belong to two different groups in most of the related literature. The purpose of this article is to compare the characteristics of those who use both CM and BM for the same illness (CBMS) with those who solely use BM (BMS). METHODS: Starting with a systematic sampling of 200,000 patients from a database of the Taiwan National Health Insurance program for the year 1999, the data were organized so that those who visited hospitals and clinics more than twice for the same illness were selected. In total, there were 96,872 (60%) BM users and 30,099 (19%) CBM users. The χ(2) test and mean test were applied to compare the differences in use between the above two subgroups. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios of demographic variables and disease types. RESULTS: Compared to the group using BM for the same illness (BMS), there were more females in the group using both CM and BM for the same illness (CBMS) (p < 0.0001). Most of the subjects in the CBMS group were aged 25-49 years (p < 0.0001). The mean number of total visits was higher for CBMS (16.33) than for BMS (13.71) (p < 0.0001). For both groups, the mean number of visits for females was higher than for males (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the mean cost per visit was significantly lower for CBMS (519.58 New Taiwan Dollar [NTD]) than for BMS (582.37 NTD). Among the top eight major disease categories of patients in the two subgroups, disease of the respiratory system was the most common primary indication in both CBMS and BMS. However, diseases of the musculoskeletal system and injury showed the highest incidences in CBMS when compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative medicinal treatment has become increasingly popular in recent years. Providing integrated CM and BM service in one medical facility might greatly benefit patients.
OBJECTIVES: Users of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CM) and biomedicine (BM) are commonly assumed to belong to two different groups in most of the related literature. The purpose of this article is to compare the characteristics of those who use both CM and BM for the same illness (CBMS) with those who solely use BM (BMS). METHODS: Starting with a systematic sampling of 200,000 patients from a database of the Taiwan National Health Insurance program for the year 1999, the data were organized so that those who visited hospitals and clinics more than twice for the same illness were selected. In total, there were 96,872 (60%) BM users and 30,099 (19%) CBM users. The χ(2) test and mean test were applied to compare the differences in use between the above two subgroups. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios of demographic variables and disease types. RESULTS: Compared to the group using BM for the same illness (BMS), there were more females in the group using both CM and BM for the same illness (CBMS) (p < 0.0001). Most of the subjects in the CBMS group were aged 25-49 years (p < 0.0001). The mean number of total visits was higher for CBMS (16.33) than for BMS (13.71) (p < 0.0001). For both groups, the mean number of visits for females was higher than for males (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the mean cost per visit was significantly lower for CBMS (519.58 New Taiwan Dollar [NTD]) than for BMS (582.37 NTD). Among the top eight major disease categories of patients in the two subgroups, disease of the respiratory system was the most common primary indication in both CBMS and BMS. However, diseases of the musculoskeletal system and injury showed the highest incidences in CBMS when compared with BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative medicinal treatment has become increasingly popular in recent years. Providing integrated CM and BM service in one medical facility might greatly benefit patients.