PubMed · 12998659
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Iu SHASS. 1952. [Ginseng root].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12998659/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To examine the natural history of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and its impact on outcomes within a cohort of rheumatology patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients were recruited from 3 university and 3 private rheumatology practices. Baseline chart reviews provided demographic information and rheumatic diagnoses. Patients answered questions on CAM use and health status during 1 year. We identified correlates of 4 CAM usage patterns (started, maintained, stopped, nonuse) and compared outcomes among these groups. RESULTS: Of 232 baseline participants, 203 (87%) and 177 (76%) responded to the 6- and 12-month surveys. In each survey, approximately 34% reported currently using CAM. During the year, 44% of patients remained nonusers whereas 12% started, 22% maintained, and 22% stopped use. The most frequent reasons for stopping CAM were lack of effectiveness and expense. CAM users and nonusers had no difference in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Arthritis patients' usage behavior varied substantially, but CAM use was not associated with a difference in outcomes.
Some complementary health modalities have found a well-accepted place in palliative care. The interdisciplinary nature of palliative care underlies the common acceptance of complementary therapies in this field of care. The experience of the interdisciplinary approach in palliative care may presage current changes in attitude towards complementary therapies in other areas of medicine. Growing collegiality and interdisciplinary teamwork in healthcare is encouraging the medical profession to see beyond scientific reservations and view complementary modalities as providing supportive roles.
Exposing alternative medicine as quackery and unscientific is necessary, but one should be aware of the limitations of scientific medicine as far as the care of individual patients is concerned. Medicine is primarily about people, not about science. Current regular medicine uses a rational approach and carries out actions of which the effectiveness has been demonstrated in controlled trials. But some questions cannot be translated into a testable hypothesis, e.g., what is the best treatment for the individual incurable cancer patient sitting in my surgery right now? However, this question is a relevant one, especially for the patient involved. In daily clinical practice, there is no clear distinction between scientifically-based and not-scientifically-based acts. The task of medicine is to cure, but also to encourage and to console. When exposing alternative medicine, one should be able to offer the patient a different approach; otherwise the exposure is nothing more than a nihilistic exercise. Alternative medicine does not cure diseases, but it sometimes helps diseased people.