Wharton R, Lewith G
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Jun 7;292(6534):1498-500. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6534.1498.
The attitudes to complementary medicine of a random sample of general practitioners in Avon were assessed. A questionnaire was sent to 200 general practitioners, of whom 145 responded. The treatments studied were acupuncture, homoeopathy, herbal medicine, spinal manipulation, faith healing, and hypnosis. Of the 145 general practitioners, 55 (38%) had received some training in complementary medicine and 22 (15%) wished to arrange training. Overall, general practitioners knew little about the techniques of complementary medicine. Despite this 86 doctors (59%) thought that the complementary techniques being assessed were useful to their patients: 110 (76%) had referred patients for this type of treatment over the past year to medically qualified colleagues and 104 (72%) had referred patients to non-medically qualified practitioners. Most (93%) of those who responded believed that complementary practitioners needed statutory regulation; only 3% thought that they should be banned. The method of regulation most favoured was through a central and independent national body. General practitioners' views about complementary techniques were most influenced (in a positive manner) by observed benefits to their patients (41%) and personal or family experience of benefit (38%). The results of the study show a surprisingly high interest in complementary medicine among general practitioners in the Avon area.
对埃文地区全科医生随机样本对补充医学的态度进行了评估。向200名全科医生发送了问卷，其中145人做出了回应。所研究的治疗方法包括针灸、顺势疗法、草药医学、脊柱推拿、信仰疗法和催眠疗法。在145名全科医生中，55人（38%）接受过补充医学方面的一些培训，22人（15%）希望安排培训。总体而言，全科医生对补充医学技术了解甚少。尽管如此，86名医生（59%）认为所评估的补充技术对他们的患者有用：在过去一年中，110人（76%）将患者转介给有医学资质的同事进行这类治疗，104人（72%）将患者转介给无医学资质的从业者。大多数做出回应的人（93%）认为补充医学从业者需要法定监管；只有3%的人认为应该禁止他们。最受青睐的监管方式是通过一个中央独立的国家机构。全科医生对补充技术的看法（以积极的方式）最受对患者观察到的益处（41%）以及个人或家庭受益经历（38%）的影响。研究结果显示，埃文地区的全科医生对补充医学有着惊人的高度兴趣。
