4.4 Article

Cross-Cultural Comparison of Visitors to CAM Practitioners in the United States and Norway

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2009.0163

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The United States and Norway are among the countries that have the highest total expenditure on health per capita and also high utilization of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, these countries have fundamentally different health care systems. The aim was therefore to compare characteristics of adults who have seen a CAM practitioner during the last year in the United States and Norway. Methods: Data from the National Health Interview Survey in the United States from 2002 and the Level of Living survey in Norway from 2002 were used. Both surveys were nationally representative household surveys of the noninstitutionalized civilian population. The data consist of 6612 individuals from Norway and 31,044 individuals from the United States. Results: In the United States, 7.4% of the population had seen a CAM practitioner during the last 12 months compared to 8.7% in Norway (p<0.001 for difference). In both the United States and Norway, seeing a CAM practitioner was most strongly associated with seeing other health care practitioners and having experienced better or worse self-reported health in the last year. Being male and a daily smoker reduced the odds of seeing a CAM practitioner in both countries. In the United States, but not Norway, having higher education was strongly associated with seeing a CAM practitioner. Higher education was the variable with the biggest difference between the two countries. Conclusions: This study indicates that in a country that provides health care services for all based on need regardless of personal income (Norway), the utilization of CAM practitioners is higher and less associated with use of other health care providers than a country with low government expenditure on health (the United States).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据