Suppr超能文献

对抗哮喘药物:患者对替代药物的看法。

Contesting asthma medication: patients' view of alternatives.

作者信息

Kopnina Helen

机构信息

Institute of Advanced Labour Studies, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Asthma. 2010 Aug;47(6):687-94. doi: 10.3109/02770901003734322.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

There are few studies pertaining to asthma patients' views on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The driving question behind the study is why some asthma patients choose noncompliance to conventional western medicine and resort to other modalities, often deemed as being 'alternative,' 'complementary,' or 'integrated.' Does the patients' emancipation movement lead to greater awareness of the benefits of alternative medicine? Does the patients' identity as asthma sufferers play a role in their decision?

METHOD

Case studies based on semistructured interviews were conducted between June 2009 and January 2010 with 19 asthma patients in The Netherlands who have chosen complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Patients were contacted through online forum of Dutch asthma patients' organization Astma Fonds.

DISCUSSION

We have discovered that on the whole patients in the present study were well informed about risks and benefits of both prescribed and alternative medicines. We have argued that noncompliance to medical regime by some asthma patients can be explained by the rationality of their choice based on evidence of clinical trials of commonly assigned asthma medication as well as partial and anecdotal evidence of the benefits of CAM therapies. It is the patients themselves who, by invoking the same evidence-based dominant paradigm choose to address the conflict between protagonists of 'conventional,' western medicine and other modalities.

CONCLUSION

The author argues that asthma patients' noncompliance with (Western) medical regime and choice for alternative medical treatment of asthma is a matter of rational choice informed by evidence-based awareness. This evidence-based rationality particularly refers here to the patients' awareness of the rather controversial results of clinical trials of commonly used asthma medicines, particularly those containing elements of budesonide (Pulmicort), an anti-inflammatory corticosteroid, and formoterol (Oxis, Foradil), a rapid-acting and long-lasting beta(2)-agonist (bronchodilator).

摘要

引言

关于哮喘患者对补充和替代医学(CAM)看法的研究较少。本研究背后的主要问题是,为何一些哮喘患者不依从传统西医治疗,而求助于通常被视为“替代”“补充”或“整合”的其他治疗方式。患者的解放运动是否会使他们更了解替代医学的益处?患者作为哮喘患者的身份是否在其决策中起作用?

方法

2009年6月至2010年1月,对荷兰19名选择补充和替代医学(CAM)的哮喘患者进行了基于半结构化访谈的案例研究。通过荷兰哮喘患者组织Astma Fonds的在线论坛联系患者。

讨论

我们发现,总体而言,本研究中的患者充分了解了处方药和替代药物的风险与益处。我们认为,一些哮喘患者不遵守医疗方案,可以通过他们基于常用哮喘药物临床试验证据以及补充和替代医学疗法益处的部分和传闻证据所做出选择的合理性来解释。正是患者自己,通过援引相同的循证主导范式,选择解决“传统”西医与其他治疗方式支持者之间的冲突。

结论

作者认为,哮喘患者不遵守(西方)医疗方案并选择哮喘替代治疗是基于循证意识的理性选择问题。这里的循证合理性尤其指患者对常用哮喘药物临床试验颇具争议结果的认识,特别是那些含有抗炎皮质类固醇布地奈德(普米克)和速效长效β₂受体激动剂(支气管扩张剂)福莫特罗(奥克斯、奥克斯都保)成分的药物。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验