Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.

TitreHealthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2017
AuthorsAveni, E, Bauer, B, Ramelet, A-S, Decosterd, I, Ballabeni, P, Bonvin, E, Rodondi, P-Y
JournalPLoS One
Volume12
Issue9
Paginatione0184979
Date Published2017
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0184979
ISSN1932-6203
Mots-clésGeneral Agricultural and Biological Sciences, General Biochemistry; Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Medicine
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.

OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.

MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.

KEY RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.

CONCLUSIONS: Different professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

Alternate URL

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28961256?dopt=Abstract

WOS ID (UT)

000412027700013

Alternate JournalPLoS ONE
Citation Key / SERVAL ID8279
Peer reviewRefereed
PubMed ID28961256
PubMed Central IDPMC5621686

                         

IUMSP | www.iumsp.ch
Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive
Route de la Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne - Switzerland
+41 21 314 72 72 | dess.info@unisante.ch

Go to top