Giannelli Massimo, Cuttini Marina, Da Frè Monica, Buiatti Eva
Unit of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Physical Therapy, Policlinico Italia, Rome, Italy.
BMC Fam Pract. 2007 May 15;8:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-30.
BACKGROUND: The growing popularity of CAM among the public is coupled with an ongoing debate on its effectiveness, safety, and its implications on the reimbursement system. This issue is critically important for GPs, who have a "gatekeeping" role with respect to health care expenditure. GPs must be aware of medications' uses, limitations and possible adverse effects. Our objective was to explore GPs' knowledge of CAM and patterns of recommendation and practice, as well as the relationship between such patterns and GPs' life-styles. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Tuscany, a region of central Italy. One hundred percent female GPs (498) and a 60% random sample of male GPs (1310) practising in the region were contacted through a self-administered postal questionnaire followed by a postal reminder and telephone interview. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 82.1%. Most respondents (58%) recommended CAM but a far smaller fraction (13%) practised it; yet 36% of CAM practitioners had no certificated training. Being female, younger age, practising in larger communities, having had some training in CAM as well as following a vegetarian or macrobiotic diet and doing physical activity were independent predictors of CAM recommendation and practice. However, 42% of GPs did not recommend CAM to patients mostly because of the insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. CONCLUSION: CAM knowledge among GPs is not as widespread as the public demand seems to require, and the scarce evidence of CAM effectiveness hinders its professional use among a considerable number of GPs. Sound research on CAM effectiveness is needed to guide physicians' behaviour, to safeguard patients' safety, and to assist policy-makers in planning regulations for CAM usage.
背景:补充替代医学(CAM)在公众中的普及程度日益提高,与此同时,关于其有效性、安全性及其对报销系统影响的争论也在持续。这个问题对全科医生至关重要,因为他们在医疗保健支出方面起着“把关”作用。全科医生必须了解药物的用途、局限性和可能的不良反应。我们的目的是探讨全科医生对补充替代医学的了解、推荐和实践模式,以及这些模式与全科医生生活方式之间的关系。 方法:在意大利中部的托斯卡纳地区进行了一项横断面研究。通过自行填写的邮政问卷,随后进行邮政提醒和电话访谈,联系了该地区100%的女全科医生(498名)和60%的男全科医生随机样本(1310名)。 结果:总体回复率为82.1%。大多数受访者(58%)推荐补充替代医学,但实际使用的比例要小得多(13%);然而,36%的补充替代医学从业者没有经过认证的培训。女性、年龄较小、在较大社区执业、接受过补充替代医学方面的一些培训、遵循素食或宏观饮食以及进行体育活动是补充替代医学推荐和实践的独立预测因素。然而,42%的全科医生没有向患者推荐补充替代医学,主要是因为其有效性证据不足。 结论:全科医生对补充替代医学的了解并不像公众需求所要求的那样广泛,补充替代医学有效性的证据不足阻碍了其在相当数量的全科医生中的专业使用。需要对补充替代医学的有效性进行可靠的研究,以指导医生的行为,保障患者安全,并协助政策制定者制定补充替代医学使用的监管规定。
Aust Fam Physician. 2000-6
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008-11
Cancer Prev Control. 1999-2
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016-11-8
Ital J Pediatr. 2012-12-11
Intern Emerg Med. 2011-12
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2010-1-28
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011-3-13
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2010-12-27
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2010-10-19
BMJ. 2005-10-15
Med J Aust. 2004-8-16
Epidemiol Prev. 2004
Aust Fam Physician. 2002-12
Am J Public Health. 2002-10
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002-4
Br J Gen Pract. 2001-1