4.7 Article

The prevalence and pattern of complementary and alternative medicine use in individuals with diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 324-329

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.2.324

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [1P01 HS 1087-01, 1K08 HS 11418-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE- This study compared the prevalence and pattern of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in individuals with and without diabetes and identified factors associated with CAM use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- The 1996 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative sample of the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population, was analyzed. Estimates of CAM use in individuals with common chronic conditions were determined, and estimates of CAM use in patients with diabetes were compared with that in individuals with chronic medical conditions. Patterns of use and costs of CAM use in patients with diabetes were compared with those in nondiabetic individuals. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of CAM use in individuals with diabetes, controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, educational level, and comorbidity. RESULTS - Individuals with diabetes were 1.6 times more likely to use CAM than individuals without diabetes (8 vs. 5%, P < 0.0001). In the general population, estimates of CAM use were not significantly different across selected chronic medical conditions, but diabetes was an.. independent predictor of CAM use. Among individuals with diabetes, older age (greater than or equal to65 years) and higher educational attainment (high school education or higher) were independently associated with CAM use. CONCLUSIONS - Diabetes is an independent predictor of CAM use in the general population and in individuals with diabetes. CAM use is more common in individuals aged greater than or equal to65 years and those with snore than high school education.

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

4.7
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