Renuka T Rudra1, Gary J Farkas2, Shahd Haidar2, Kristin E Slavoski2, Nancy E Lokey2, Timothy R Hudson3. 1. a Penn State College of Medicine , Hershey , Pennsylvania, USA. 2. b Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and Penn State College of Medicine , Hershey , Pennsylvania, USA. 3. c Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGuire Veterans Medical Center , Richmond , Virginia, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT/ OBJECTIVE: To compare the beliefs and practices of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), their friends and family members (F&F SCI), and healthcare professionals (HCP) regarding complementary alternative medicine (CAM). DESIGN: A questionnaire regarding CAM practices and beliefs was administered to participants on paper or online. SETTING: An academic rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six individuals voluntarily participated in the study. Participants included 28 patients with SCI, 36 F&F SCI, and 32 HCP. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable Outcome Measures: The questionnaire assessed participants' prior or current use of 14 CAM modalities, their willingness to use CAM in the future or recommend its use, and their beliefs and opinions of CAM. RESULTS: Participants with SCI and their family and friends, were more likely than HCP to have used CAM (P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.03, respectively) and recommend its use (P ≤ 0.04 and P ≤ 0.03, respectively). All three groups showed statistical significance in their willingness to ever use certain CAM modalities (P ≤ 0.03 for SCI, P ≤ 0.04 for F&F SCI, and P ≤ 0.02 for HCP). SCI, F&F SCI, and HCP groups had similar beliefs and opinions regarding CAM. CONCLUSION: Patients with SCI as well as their friends and family, have significantly more experience with CAM and are more likely to recommend its use than HCP, suggesting that they are interested and find benefit in alternative healthcare. This warrants further investigation of the integration of CAM into general health practices for those with SCI.
CONTEXT/ OBJECTIVE: To compare the beliefs and practices of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI), their friends and family members (F&F SCI), and healthcare professionals (HCP) regarding complementary alternative medicine (CAM). DESIGN: A questionnaire regarding CAM practices and beliefs was administered to participants on paper or online. SETTING: An academic rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six individuals voluntarily participated in the study. Participants included 28 patients with SCI, 36 F&F SCI, and 32 HCP. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable Outcome Measures: The questionnaire assessed participants' prior or current use of 14 CAM modalities, their willingness to use CAM in the future or recommend its use, and their beliefs and opinions of CAM. RESULTS:Participants with SCI and their family and friends, were more likely than HCP to have used CAM (P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.03, respectively) and recommend its use (P ≤ 0.04 and P ≤ 0.03, respectively). All three groups showed statistical significance in their willingness to ever use certain CAM modalities (P ≤ 0.03 for SCI, P ≤ 0.04 for F&F SCI, and P ≤ 0.02 for HCP). SCI, F&F SCI, and HCP groups had similar beliefs and opinions regarding CAM. CONCLUSION:Patients with SCI as well as their friends and family, have significantly more experience with CAM and are more likely to recommend its use than HCP, suggesting that they are interested and find benefit in alternative healthcare. This warrants further investigation of the integration of CAM into general health practices for those with SCI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complementary alternative medicine; Healthcare; Medicine; Spinal cord injury
Authors: Ava Joubert; Andrea Kidd-Taylor; Gail Christopher; Joy Nanda; Rueben Warren; Ian Lindong; Yvonne Bronner Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Maureen A Flannery; Margaret M Love; Kevin A Pearce; Jingyu Julia Luan; William G Elder Journal: Altern Ther Health Med Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.305
Authors: Anthony E Chiodo; William M Scelza; Steven C Kirshblum; Lisa-Ann Wuermser; Chester H Ho; Michael M Priebe Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: A Molassiotis; P Fernández-Ortega; D Pud; G Ozden; J A Scott; V Panteli; A Margulies; M Browall; M Magri; S Selvekerova; E Madsen; L Milovics; I Bruyns; G Gudmundsdottir; S Hummerston; A M-A Ahmad; N Platin; N Kearney; E Patiraki Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Stephen Wegener; Lisa Benrud-Larson; Betty Fisher; Michael Clark; Timothy Dillingham; Ling Cheng; Barbara DeLateur Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Sally M Taylor; Elaine O Cheung; Ruichen Sun; Veronika Grote; Anthony Marchlewski; Elizabeth L Addington Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 1.985