4.5 Article

Frequency, type and factors associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients with Parkinson's disease at a neurological outpatient clinic

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 540-544

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.06.007

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Complementary medicine; Perceived health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is described as a set of healthcare and medical practices not currently part of conventional western medicine. In this study, we aimed to investigate the frequency, type and factors associated with the use of CAM in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients at a neurological outpatient clinic. Method: All PD patients at the outpatient clinic (N = 421) received a postal questionnaire covering ten types of CAM plus an open alternative labelled 'other type', their possible effect, and socio-demographic, health and disease-related factors. Results: 325/403 (81%) eligible patients responded comprising 172 men and 153 women, median age 74 years for both genders. CAM use was reported by (M/F) 51/59 patients (30/39%); 31/33 patients (18/22%) taking CAM drugs and 48/57 (28/37%) using CAM methods with acupuncture having the highest frequency. Significant differences between CAM users and non-users were found with regard to educational level, perceived health and levodopa load. More females than males used CAM, but the difference was not significant. The majority of CAM users perceived 'No improvement' or 'Some improvement'. Twenty percent of users reported that they had spent the equivalent of 50 on CAM during the last 6 months. Conclusion: CAM use is rather common among PD outpatients, with one in three having experience of CAM practices. Badly-perceived health and higher education were factors significantly associated with CAM utilization. A trend for more female CAM users was also seen. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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