| Literature DB >> 23634168 |
Duong Duc Pham1, Jong Hyang Yoo, Binh Quoc Tran, Thuy Thu Ta.
Abstract
Interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing worldwide, even in Vietnam where traditional medicine is considered mainstream. We conducted a survey of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of CAM therapies among physicians in oriental medicine (OM) hospitals in Vietnam. A two-stage random selection process selected 337 physicians who were interviewed using a face-to-face method with a standardized structured questionnaire. Data from 312 physicians who completed the questionnaire suggested that oriental herbal medicine and acupuncture (Vietnamese OM version) were the more commonly used CAM modalities compared with Vietnamese folk medicine and other forms of CAM. A broad range of CAM modalities, particularly chiropractice, diet supplements, and dietary therapy, and an excessive proportion of western medication were employed in conjunction with OM in the physicians' daily practice. Their daily practice was influenced by the source of knowledge, education level, medical specialty, and working environment. These findings suggest that physicians in OM hospitals in Vietnam have interests in various forms of CAM therapies besides traditional modes.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23634168 PMCID: PMC3619628 DOI: 10.1155/2013/392191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow chart of sample selection. The provinces of Vietnam were divided into 5 regions, including the Northeast and Northwest, the Red River Delta, Central Coast, Central Highlands, and Southern regions. (1) The OM hospital of Ha Giang province; (2) the OM hospital of Thai Nguyen province; (3) the OM hospital of Bac Giang province; (4) the OM hospital of Quang Ninh province; (5) the OM hospital of Hoa Binh province; (6) the OM hospital of Hung Yen province; (7) the OM hospital of Thai Binh province; (8) the OM hospital of Vinh Phuc province; (9) the OM hospital of Ninh Binh province; (10) the OM hospital of Quang Binh province; (11) the OM hospital of Quang Nam province; (12) the OM hospital of Da Nang city; (13) the OM hospital of Lam Dong province; (14) the OM hospital of Binh Phuoc province; (15) the OM hospital of Binh Thuan province; (16) the OM hospital of Binh Duong province; (17) the OM hospital of Ben Tre province; (18) the OM hospital of Vinh Long province. The star is Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam, where there are two state-level OM hospitals: NHTM: the National Hospital of Traditional Medicine and NHoA: the National Hospital of Acupuncture.
Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
| Provincial hospital | National hospital |
| Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response rate | 239/257 (93.0) | 73/80 (91.3) | 0.78 | 312/337 (92.6) |
| Age (yrs) | ||||
| >45yrs (%) | 28.5 | 43.8 | 32.1 | |
| 36–45 yrs (%) | 34.7 | 34.2 | 0.02 | 34.6 |
| ≤35 (%) | 36.8 | 21.9 | 33.3 | |
| Gender | ||||
| Men (%) | 52.7 | 41.1 | 0.11 | 50.0 |
| Women (%) | 47.3 | 58.9 | 50.0 | |
| Department | ||||
| Inpatient (%) | 79.5 | 64.4 | 0.008 | 76.0 |
| Outpatient (%) | 20.5 | 35.6 | 24.0 | |
| Number of patients seen per day (pts) | ||||
| ≥21 pts (%) | 31.4 | 13.7 | 27.2 | |
| 11–20 pts (%) | 45.6 | 28.8 | <0.0001 | 41.7 |
| ≤10 pts (%) | 23 | 57.5 | 31.1 | |
| Length of experience in TM practice (yrs) | ||||
| ≥20 yrs (%) | 17.2 | 45.2 | 23.7 | |
| 10–19 yrs (%) | 38.5 | 32.9 | <0.0001 | 37.2 |
| <10 yrs (%) | 44.4 | 21.9 | 39.1 | |
| Education in TM | ||||
| Undergraduate (%) | 57.3 | 38.4 | 0.004 | 52.9 |
| Graduate (%) | 42.7 | 61.6 | 47.1 | |
| Running private clinic | ||||
| Yes (%) | 25.9 | 20.5 | 0.35 | 24.7 |
| No (%) | 74.1 | 79.5 | 75.3 | |
| Medical specialty | ||||
| GP (%) | 24.7 | 38.4 | 0.02 | 27.9 |
| OMD (%) | 75.3 | 61.6 | 72.1 |
P was calculated by chi-squared tests. TM: traditional medicine; GP: physicians who were trained as general practitioners in medical school; OMD: physicians who were trained as oriental medical doctors in medical school.
Figure 2Knowledge and practice of CAM therapies among physicians in oriental medicine hospitals. This spider web chart represents proportion of positive response to four scale 12-item questionnaire about knowledge of CAM modalities versus proportion of CAM modalities used in clinical practice. Each axis indicates the proportion of positive response from 0 to 100% for a given CAM modality.
Source of knowledge of CAM therapies among physicians in oriental medicine hospitals.
| Provincial hospital | National hospital |
| Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| College curriculum (%) | 98.7 | 98.6 | 0.94 | 98.7 |
| Text book (%) | 82.0 | 90.4 | 0.09 | 84.0 |
| Academic journal (%) | 73.2 | 90.4 | 0.002 | 77.2 |
| Internet (%) | 69.9 | 86.3 | 0.005 | 73.7 |
| Conference/training (%) | 67.8 | 89.0 | 0.0004 | 72.8 |
| Magazine/newspaper (%) | 49.0 | 74.0 | 0.0002 | 54.8 |
| Inherited from community (%) | 24.7 | 42.5 | 0.003 | 28.8 |
| Inherited from relatives (%) | 26.8 | 31.5 | 0.43 | 27.9 |
P was calculated by chi-squared tests.
Attitude toward CAM therapies among physicians in oriental medicine hospitals.
| Questions | Absolutely agree | Agree | Disagree | Absolutely disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Q1) Trust on effectiveness of CAM therapies. | 75.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| (Q2) CAM may be better than conventional medicine because of its natural source. | 51.9 | 42.0 | 6.1 | 0.0 |
| (Q3) CAM emphasizes on holistic approach rather than disease. | 40.1 | 34.9 | 22.1 | 2.9 |
| (Q4) CAM may be superior to conventional medicine in some cases. | 62.2 | 34.0 | 2.9 | 1.0 |
| (Q5) CAM use should be based on scientific evidence. | 35.6 | 43.9 | 18.9 | 1.6 |
Data are presented as percent of positive response.
Association between demographic factors and overall scores of knowledge, practice, and attitude toward CAM and western medication use.
| Knowledge score | Practice score | Western medication use (%) | Attitude score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean (SE)a |
| Mean (SE)a |
| Mean (SE)a |
| Mean (SE)a | |
| Age (yrs) | ||||||||
| >45 ( | 1.97 (0.004 to 3.93) | 26.2 (0.6) | −0.45 (−1.32 to 0.43) | 5.5 (0.3) | −5.69 (−16.0 to 4.6) | 45.8 (3.2) | 0.45 (−0.22 to 1.12) | 10.3 (0.2) |
| 36–45 ( | 0.77 (−0.87 to 2.42) | 25.0 (0.6) | −0.33 (−1.07 to 0.40) | 5.6 (0.3) | −3.58 (−12.2 to 5.05) | 47.9 (3.1) | 0.32 (−0.25 to 0.88) | 10.1 (0.2) |
| ≤35 ( | Ref | 24.2 (0.8) | Ref | 6.0 (0.3) | Ref | 51.5 (4.0) | Ref | 9.8 (0.3) |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Men ( | 0.26 (−0.84 to 1.35) | 25.2 (0.5) | 0.08 (−0.41 to 0.57) | 5.7 (0.2) | 4.71 (−1.04 to 10.5) | 50.8 (2.6) | 0.21 (−0.16 to 0.59) | 10.2 (0.2) |
| Women ( | Ref | 25.0 (0.5) | Ref | 5.7 (0.2) | Ref | 46.1 (2.6) | Ref | 10.0 (0.2) |
| Department | ||||||||
| Inpatient ( | 0.84 (−0.42 to 2.11) | 25.5 (0.4) | 0.26 (−0.30 to 0.82) | 5.8 (0.2) | 3.48 (−3.15 to 10.1) | 50.2 (2.2) | −0.14 (−0.58 to 0.29) | 10.0 (0.1) |
| Outpatient ( | Ref | 24.7 (0.6) | Ref | 5.6 (0.3) | Ref | 46.7 (3.2) | Ref | 10.1 (0.2) |
| Length of experience in TM practice (yrs) | ||||||||
| ≥20 ( | −3.23 (−5.24 to −1.21)** | 23.3 (0.8) | −0.69 (−1.59 to 0.21) | 5.4 (0.3) | −7.03 (−17.6 to 3.52) | 44.1 (4.0) | −0.97 (−1.66 to −0.28)** | 9.5 (0.3) |
| 10–19 ( | −1.14 (−2.63 to 0.34) | 25.4 (0.6) | −0.39 (−0.13 to 1.05) | 5.7 (0.3) | −1.18 (−8.97 to 6.62) | 50.0 (3.0) | −0.38 (−0.89 to 0.13) | 10.1 (0.2) |
| <10 ( | Ref | 26.6 (0.6) | Ref | 6.1 (0.3) | Ref | 51.2 (3.4) | Ref | 10.5 (0.2) |
| Number of patients seen per day (pts) | ||||||||
| ≥21 ( | 0.79 (−0.74 to 2.31) | 25.8 (0.6) | 0.65 (−0.03 to 1.34) | 6.0 (0.3) | 6.94 (−1.05 to 14.9) | 55.3 (3.2) | −0.12 (−0.64 to 0.40) | 10.0 (0.2) |
| 11–20 ( | −0.66 (−1.97 to 0.66) | 24.4 (0.6) | 0.46 (−0.13 to 1.05) | 5.8 (0.3) | −6.67 (−13.6 to 0.24) | 41.7 (3.0) | 0.07 (−0.38 to 0.52) | 10.1 (0.2) |
| ≤10 ( | Ref | 25.1 (0.6) | Ref | 5.3 (0.3) | Ref | 48.3 (3.0) | Ref | 10.1 (0.2) |
| Running private clinic | ||||||||
| Yes ( | 0.78 (−0.74 to 2.31) | 25.5 (0.6) | 0.56 (−0.04 to 1.15) | 6.0 (0.3) | 1.88 (−5.16 to 8.92) | 49.4 (3.3) | 0.35 (−0.12 to 0.81) | 10.2 (0.2) |
| No ( | Ref | 24.7 (0.4) | Ref | 5.4 (0.2) | Ref | 47.5 (2.2) | Ref | 9.9 (0.1) |
| Education in TM | ||||||||
| Graduate ( | 2.75 (4.12 to 15.4)*** | 26.5 (0.5) | 1.12 (0.51 to 1.74)*** | 6.3 (0.3) | −3.54 (−10.7 to 3.64) | 46.6 (2.7) | 0.79 (0.32 to 1.26)** | 10.5 (0.2) |
| Undergraduate ( | Ref | 23.7 (0.6) | Ref | 5.1 (0.3) | Ref | 50.2 (3.0) | Ref | 9.7 (0.2) |
| Medical specialty | ||||||||
| OMD ( | 1.48 (0.24 to2.72)* | 25.8 (0.4) | −0.10 (−0.65 to 0.46) | 5.6 (0.2) | −13.3 (−19.8 to −6.7)*** | 41.8 (2.3) | −0.36 (−0.78 to 0.07) | 9.9 (0.1) |
| GP ( | Ref | 24.4 (0.6) | Ref | 5.7 (0.3) | Ref | 55.0 (3.1) | Ref | 10.2 (0.2) |
| Hospital level | ||||||||
| National ( | 2.77 (1.36 to 4.18)*** | 26.5 (0.6) | 1.06 (0.43 to 1.69)** | 6.2 (0.3) | 12.2 (4.86 to 19.6)** | 54.5 (3.3) | 0.07 (−0.41 to 0.55) | 10.1 (0.2) |
| Provincial ( | Ref | 23.7 (0.5) | Ref | 5.2 (0.2) | Ref | 42.3 (2.4) | Ref | 10.0 (0.2) |
Linear regression analysis in which age, gender, department, length of experience in TM practice (yrs), number of patients seen per day, experience running a private clinic, education in TM, specialty type, and hospital level were considered predictive factors. β (95% CI) beta coefficient and 95% confident interval; aadjusted mean and standard error. Ref: the group was set up as reference. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.