| Literature DB >> 27707901 |
Shilpa Babbar1, Karen B Williams2, Dev Maulik2.
Abstract
The use of complementary and alternative medicine during pregnancy is currently on the rise. A validated survey was conducted at the Central Association of Obstetrician and Gynecologists annual meeting to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of general obstetricians and gynecologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists in America. We obtained 128 responses: 73 electronically (57%) and 55 via the paper survey (43%). Forty-five percent reported personally using complementary and alternative medicine and 9% of women respondents used complementary and alternative medicine during pregnancy. Overall, 62% had advised their patients to utilize some form of complementary and alternative medicine in pregnancy. Biofeedback, massage therapy, meditation, and yoga were considered the most effective modalities in pregnancy (median [semi-interquartile range] = 2 [0.5]). Maternal-fetal medicine specialists were significantly more likely to disagree on the use of complementary and alternative medicine for risk reduction of preterm birth compared to obstetricians and gynecologists ( P = .03). As the use of complementary and alternative medicine continues to rise in reproductive-age women, obstetricians will play an integral role in incorporating complementary and alternative medicine use with conventional medicine.Entities:
Keywords: complementary and alternative medicine; obstetrics; pregnancy
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27707901 PMCID: PMC5871154 DOI: 10.1177/2156587216671215
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med ISSN: 2156-5899
Baseline Demographic Characteristics of All Respondents.
| Characteristic | Respondents (N = 128), n (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 82 (64.1) |
| Female | 45 (35.2) |
| Current academic status | |
| Student | 0 |
| Resident | 8 (6.3) |
| Fellow (MFM only) | 3 (2.3) |
| Board-certified generalist | 69 (53.9) |
| Board-certified MFM specialist | 43 (33.6) |
| Board-certified gynecology oncologist | 1 (0.8) |
| Board-certified reproductive endocrinologist | 1 (0.8) |
| Board-certified urogynecologist | 2 (1.6) |
| Other | 1 (0.8) |
| Total number of years you have practiced obstetrics after residencya | 21.4 (0-47) |
| Ethnicity | |
| Caucasian | 105 (82) |
| African American | 11 (8.6) |
| Hispanic | 2 (1.6) |
| Asian | 5 (3.9) |
| Multiracial/other | 5 (3.9) |
| Midwives integrated in your obstetric practice | 54 (42.2) |
Abbreviation: MFM, maternal-fetal medicine.
aData presented as mean (range).
Personal Complementary and Alternative Medicine Usea.
| Respondents (N = 128), n (%) | |
|---|---|
| Have you | |
| No | 70 (54.7) |
| Yes, please specify | 58 (45.3) |
| If female, did you ever use CAM during a pregnancy? | |
| Male/never been pregnant | 82 (64.1) |
| No | 30 (23.4) |
| Yes, please specify | 12 (9.4) |
| Have you received any training beyond medical school or residency on the use of CAM (ie, yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, hypnotherapy, etc)? | |
| No | 113 (88.3) |
| Yes, please specify | 15 (11.7) |
| Do you routinely query your pregnant patients about their use of CAM during the pregnancy? | |
| No | 84 (65.6) |
| Yes | 43 (33.6) |
| Have you ever prescribed, referred, or advised the use of any CAM to your pregnant patients? | |
| No | |
| Please indicate the reason for | 49 (38.3) |
| Not enough evidence on the efficacy of CAM during pregnancy | 24 (18.8) |
| Not enough evidence on the safety of CAM during pregnancy | 13 (10.2) |
| No training in the use of CAM during pregnancy | 25 (19.5) |
| Bad patient experience with previous CAM use during pregnancy | 2 (1.6) |
| Conventional medicine is sufficient for the management of pregnancy | 5 (3.9) |
| Other | 3 (2.3) |
| Yes | |
| What sources of information do you use to find out about CAM use in pregnancy? (check all that apply): | 79 (61.7) |
| ACOG resources | 35 (27.3) |
| Peer reviewed journal articles | 33 (25.8) |
| Professional colleagues | 45 (35.2) |
| Personal experience | 32 (25.0) |
| Family and friends | 9 (7.0) |
| CAM providers | 21 (16.4) |
| Magazines/television | 3 (2.3) |
| Internet (nonmedical sites) | 8 (6.3) |
| Others | 4 (3.1) |
Abbreviation: ACOG, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
aTotal N may vary due to the possibility of multiple answers and all respondents did not answer all questions.
Ratings of Effectiveness of CAM Modalities in Pregnancya.
| Modality | Effectiveness Score, Median (SIQ) | Harmful, n (%) | Not Familiar With Modality, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture | 3 (0.5) | 0 | 20 (15.6) |
| Acupressure | 3 (0.5) | 0 | 39 (30.5) |
| Aromatherapy | 3 (0.5) | 0 | 43 (33.6) |
| Biofeedback | 2 (0.5) | 0 | 30 (23.4) |
| Black cohosh | 4 (1.0) | 27 (21.1) | 39 (30.5) |
| Chiropractic | 3 (0.5) | 11 (8.6) | 10 (7.8) |
| Ginger | 3 (0.5) | 0 | 18 (14.1) |
| Homeopathy | 4 (0.5) | 4 (3.1) | 53 (41.4) |
| Hypnosis/guided imagery | 3 (0.5) | 0 | 36 (28.1) |
| Massage therapy | 2 (0.5) | 1 (0.8) | 11 (8.6) |
| Meditation | 2 (0.5) | 0 | 22 (17.2) |
| Music therapy | 3 (0.5) | 1 (0.8) | 35 (27.3) |
| Reflexology | 3 (0.5) | 3 (2.3) | 57 (44.5) |
| Traditional Chinese medicine | 3 (0.5) | 6 (4.7) | 65 (50.8) |
| Yoga | 2 (0.1) | 1 (0.8) | 17 (13.3) |
Abbreviations: CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; SIQ, semi-interquartile range.
aEffectiveness scale: 1 = Highly; 2 = Moderately; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Not; 5 = Harmful.
Comparison of Subscale Scores From Obstetricians and Gynecologists and MFMs on CAM Use in Pregnancy.
| Subscale Scores (Cronbach α) | Generalists (n = 69), Mean (SD) | MFM (n = 46), Mean (SD) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM use for treatment of nausea in pregnancy (α = .75) | 2.5 (0.5) | 2.5 (0.7) | .97 |
| CAM use for reduction in pregnancy or labor pain (α = .79) | 2.3 (0.4) | 2.5 (0.7) | .14 |
| CAM use for reduction in labor duration (α = .62) | 3.3 (0.6) | 3.4 (0.7) | .46 |
| CAM use and the risk of preterm birth (α = .75) | 3.2 (0.4) | 3.4 (0.6) | .03 |
| Moxibustion use in pregnancy (α = .49) | 3.4 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.7) | .23 |
| CAM use and sleep in pregnancy (single item) | 2.1 (0.7) | 2.2 (0.8) | .60 |
Abbreviations: CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; MFM, maternal-fetal medicine; SD, standard deviation.
Attitudes About Integration of CAM Use Into Prenatal Medicinea.
| Total Respondents (N = 128), Median (SIQ) | Ob-Gyns (N = 69), Median (SIQ) | MFM (N = 46), Median (SIQ) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical care should integrate the best conventional and CAM practices. | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.6) | .35 |
| Irrespective of personal beliefs, health care professionals should have knowledge about commonly used CAM methods. | 2 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | .53 |
| While a few CAM approaches may have limited health benefits, they have no true impact on treatment of symptoms, conditions and/or diseases of pregnancy. | 3 (0.9) | 3 (1.0) | 3 (1.0) | .92 |
| There is value in complementary and alternative medicine use in pregnancy. | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.5) | .54 |
| Health care professional should receive formal training in medical school about CAM methods that can be used during pregnancy. | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.5) | 2 (0.5) | .50 |
Abbreviations: CAM, complementary and alternative medicine; MFM, maternal-fetal medicine; SIQ, semi-interquartile range.
aMedian scale: 1 = Strongly agree; 2 = Agree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Disagree; 5 = Strongly disagree.