PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7636814

Complementary medicine: common misconceptions.

E Ernst
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Complementary medicine (CM), defined as health care which lies for the most part outside the mainstream of conventional medicine, is gaining popularity in Britain and elsewhere. In the UK the most prevalent therapies are manipulation (used by 36% of the population), herbalism (24%) homoeopathy (16%) and acupuncture (16%). Due to the heterogeneity of CM, it is often problematic to generalize. The debate about the usefulness of CM is often regrettably emotional, and thus unproductive. In the pursuit of a more fruitful way ahead, the following highlights some of the main arguments from both 'sides' and tries to disguise them as misconceptions.

Explore related subjects

Attitude of Health PersonnelComplementary TherapiesHumansEditorialReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Ernst. 1995. Complementary medicine: common misconceptions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7636814/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

The impact of practice setting on physician perceptions of the quality of practice and patient care in the managed care era.

BACKGROUND: Managed care is practiced in both traditional institutional health maintenance organization (HMO) settings and in a variety of complex and decentralized office-based arrangements. This study examines how practice setting affects physician perceptions of the quality of professional practice and patient care in a managed care environment. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A survey was conducted in 1998 of 1081 physicians in San Mateo County, California, who practice in either a traditional staff group model HMO (SGM-HMO) (n = 113) or office-based independent practice (OBIP) (n = 250). Respondents were surveyed about current and past practice characteristics, income changes, current satisfaction with professional and patient care matters, utility of treatment guidelines and formularies, and general perceptions of managed care. Responses were compared between practice settings using bivariate comparisons and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Physicians in the SGM-HMO and those in OBIP reported similar hours worked per week, time spent with patients during office visits, and total patient encounters per week. Declining income was more frequent in OBIP (61% vs 47%) and relatively more substantial (27% with income declines >25% vs 4% in SGM-HMO). Adjusting for income changes, practice setting, years in practice, and sex, SGM-HMO physicians were significantly more satisfied with a variety of professional and quality of care issues (P<.001), viewed more favorably the utility of treatment guidelines and drug formularies (P<.001), and held more positive general perceptions of managed care (P<.001) than OBIP physicians. CONCLUSIONS: In a managed care environment, SGM-HMO physicians are significantly more satisfied with the quality of practice and patient care than physicians in OBIP. This study suggests that the myriad managed care contracts, formularies, and guidelines received by physicians in OBIPs may lead to more negative perceptions of the quality of professional practice and patient care.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗