Alternative Medicine or “Alternative” Patients: A Qualitative Study of Patient-Oriented Decision-Making Processes with Respect to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online January, 2004
Alternative Medicine or “Alternative” Patients: A Qualitative Study of Patient-Oriented Decision-Making Processes with Respect to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Background.Theory and clinical practice suggest that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) decisionmaking processesmaydiffer from those used in conventional medicine. If so, understanding the differences could improve patient-provider communication around treatment options.Objectives.To examine patient-oriented decision-making processes relative to CAM use.Population.Adults with chronic rheumatological disorders who utilize allopathic medicine only, CAM only, or both.Method.An exploratory, cross-sectional naturalistic design with thematic and content analyses.Results.Three distinct decision paths were developed, differing substantially on the importance of provider trust, disease severity/prognosis, willingness to experiment, intuitive/spiritual factors, and outcomes evidence.Conclusions.These divergent decision paths indicate the possibility of “alternative patients,” not just “alternative therapies.” Since informed decisions, tailored to the patient, would likely lead to sustainable improvements in health care outcomes, the findings may facilitate providers’ capacity to effectively advise patients about treatment alternatives and CAM use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Deyo RA. Tell it like it is. Patients as partners inmedical decision making. JGIM. 2000;15:752–754.
2.
2. BarryMJ. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Int Med. 2002;136:127–135.
3.
3. Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, LevinsonW. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282:2313–2320.
4.
4. Deyo RA. A key medical decision maker: the patient. BMJ. 2001;323:466–467.
5.
5. Gwyn R, Elwyn G. When is a shared decision not (quite) a shared decision? Negotiating preferences in a general practice encounter. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:437–447.
6.
6. Ferriman A. Patients need to be more involved in care decisions. BMJ. 2001;323:10-10.
7.
7. Ramos-Remus C, Watters CA, Dyke L, Suarez-AlmazorME, Russell AS. Assessment of health locus of control in the use of nonconventional remedies by patients with rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:2468–2474.
8.
8. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Understanding complementary and alternative medicine. What is complementary and alternative medicine? Available from: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/. Accessed 25 September 2002.
9.
9. Wootton JC, Sparber A. Surveys of complementary and alternative medicine: part I: general trends and demographic groups. J Alt Comp Med. 2001;7:195–208.
10.
10. Ernst E. Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: a systematic review. Bull of WHO. 2000;78:252–257.
11.
11. Harris P, Rees R. The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among the general population: a systematic review of the literature. Comp Ther Med. 2000;8:88–96.
12.
12. Halliday J, Taylor M, Jenkins A, Reilly D. Medical students and complementary medicine. Compl Ther Med. 1993;1(Suppl):32–33.
13.
13. Hopper I, Cohen M. Complementary therapies and the medical profession: a study of medical students’ attitudes. Altern Ther Health Med. 1998;4:68–73.
14.
14. Astin JA, Marie A, Pelletier KR, Hansen E, Haskell WL. A review of the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by mainstream physicians. Arch Int Med. 1998;158;2303–2310.
15.
15. Winslow LC, Shapiro H. Physicians want education about complementary and alternative medicine to enhance communication with their patients. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1176–1181.
16.
16. Pelletier KR, Astin JA, Haskell WL. Current trends in the integration and reimbursement of complementary and alternativemedicine by managed care organizations (MCOs) and insurance providers: 1998 update and cohort analysis. Am J Health Promot. 1999;14;125– 133.
17.
17. White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy Final Report (March 2002). Available from: http://whccamp.hhs.gov/finalreport.html. Accessed 25 September 2002.
18.
18. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. NEngl J Med. 1993;328:246–252.
19.
19. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA. 1998;280:1569–1575.
20.
20. Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA. 1998;279:1548–1553.
21.
21. Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br J Clin Psychol. 1996;35:37–48.
22.
22. Ernst E, Pittler MH, Stevinson C, White A, Eisenberg D, editors. TheDesktop Guide to Complementary and AlternativeMedicine: An Evidence-Based Approach. Edinburgh, UK: Mosby; 2001.
23.
23. SampsonW. The braid of the “alternative medicine” movement. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 1998;2:4–11.
24.
24. Piscitelli S. Preventing dangerous drug interactions. J Am Pharma Ass. 2000;40:44–45.
25.
25. Ruschitzka F, Meier PJ, Turina M, Luscher TF, Noll G. Acute heart transplant rejection due to Saint John’s wort. Lancet. 2000;355: 548–549.
26.
26. AngellM, Kassier JP. Alternative medicine—the risks of untested and unregulated remedies. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:839–841.
27.
27. WyniaMK, EisenbergDM, Wilson IB. Physician-patient communication about complementary and alternative medical therapies: a survey of physicians caring for patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Alt Comp Med. 1999;5:447–456.
28.
28. Montibrand MJ. Freedom of choice: an issue concerning alternate therapies chosen by patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1993;20:195–210.
29.
29. StreubertHJ, CarpenterDR. Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1999
30.
30. Thorne S. Nursing Praxis: Knowledge and Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997.
31.
31. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.
32.
32. Lawrence R, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, Deyo RA, Felson DT, Giannini EH. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:778–799.
33.
33. Rao JK, Mihaliak K, Kroenke K, Bradley J, Tierney WM, Weinberger M. Use of complementary therapies for arthritis among patients of rheumatologists. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:409–416.
34.
34. Chandola A, YoungY, McAlister J, Axford JS. Use of complementary therapies by patients attending musculoskeletal clinics. J Royal Soc Med. 1999;92:13–16.
35.
35. Camara K, Danao-Camara T. Awareness of, use and perceptions of efficacy of alternative therapies by patients with inflammatory arthropathies. Hawaii Med J. 1999;58:329–332.
36.
36. BoissetM, FitzcharlesMA. Alternativemedicine use by patients in a universal health care setting. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:148–152.
37.
37. Ernst E. Usage of complementary therapies in rheumatology: a systemic review. Clin Rheumatol. 1998;17:301–305.
38.
38. Cronan TA, Kaplan RM, Kozin F. Factors affecting unprescribed remedy use among people with self-reported arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1993;6:149–155.
39.
39. Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
40.
40. Fontana L, Frey D. Constructivist methodology. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000.
41.
41. Spradley AP. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1979.
42.
42. Silverman D. Analyzing talk and text. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000. p. 821–834.
43.
43. Wallston KA, SteinMJ, Smith CA. Form C of theMHLC scales: a condition-specific measure of locus of control. J Pers Assess. 1994;63:534–553.
44.
44. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. The role of physicians’ recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:262–271.
45.
45. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:329–339.
46.
46. McKinstry B. Do patients wish to be involved in decision making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. BMJ. 2000;321:867–871.
47.
47. Pierce PF. When the patient chooses: describing unaided decisions in health care. Human Factors. 1996;38:278–287.
48.
48. Coates JR, Jobst KA. Integrated health care: away forward for the next five years? A discussion document from the Prince of Wales’s Initiative on Integrated Medicine. J Alt Comp Med. 1998;4:209–247.
49.
49. Dalen EJ. ’Conventional” and “unconventional” medicine. Can they be integrated? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2179–2181.
51. Faass N, editor. Integrating Complementary Medicine into Health Systems. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen; 2001.
52.
52. CaspiO, Maizes V, Bell IR. The integrativemedicine perspective: concepts, clinical application, implications for evidence-based practice, and medical education. In press.
53.
53. Lewis JD, Strom BL. Balancing safety of dietary supplements with the free market. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:616–618.
54.
54. Weeks J. What makes a physician an expert in CAM? Med Econ. 2000;77:109–110, 117-117.
55.
55. Hastie R. Problems for judgment and decision making. Ann Rev Psychol. 2001;52:653–683.
56.
56. Reaby LL. Breast restoration decision making: enhancing the process. Cancer Nurs. 1998;21:196–204.
57.
57. Mansell D, Poses RM, Kazis L, Duefield CA. Clinical factors that influence patients’ desire for participation in decisions about illness. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2991–2996.
58.
58. Snyderman R, Weil AT. Integrativemedicine: bringing medicine back to its roots. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:395–397.
59.
59. Bell IR, Caspi O, Schwartz GRE, et al. Integrative medicine and systematic outcomes research: issues in the emergence of a new model for primary health care. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:133–140.
60.
60. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273:302–305.
61.
61. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, editors. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
62.
62. Bell DE, Raiffa H, Tvesrky A, editors. Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
63.
63. Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients? Decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72–76.
64.
64. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J. Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behav Sci. 1963;8:41–55.
65.
65. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev. 1972;79:281–299.
66.
66. Barthelemy JP, Mullet E. A model of selection by aspects. Acta Psychologica. 1992;79:1–19.
67.
67. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev. 1988;95:371–384.
68.
68. Bockenholt U, Albert D, AschenbrennerM. The effects of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multiattribute binary choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;49:258–281.
69.
69. Sirois FM, Gick ML. An investigation of the health beliefs and motivations of complementary medicine clients. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1025–1037.
70.
70. Andersen R, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. TheMilbankMemorial Fund Quarterly. 1973;51:95–124.
71.
71. Pawluch D, Cain R, Gillet J. Ideology and alternative therapy use among people living with HIV/AIDS. Health Canadian Soc. 1994;2:63–84.
72.
72. Brugmann M, Kugler J, Galm O, Fabry U, Osieka R, Neuser J. Psychological determinants for the use of complementary medicine in oncology patients [abstract 247]. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Barcelona, Spain, November 1999.
73.
73. Delate T, Griffis DL, Coons SJ. Determinants of the use of complementary and alternative medicine by persons with HIV. In press.
74.
74. Brown CM, Segal R. Ethnic differences in temporal orientation and its implications for hypertension management. J Health Soc Behav. 1996;37:350–361.
75.
75. Fries CJ, Menzies KS. Gullible fools or desperate pragmatists? A profile of people who use rejected alternative health care providers. Can J Pub Health. 2000;91:217–219.
76.
76. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basic of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.
77.
77. Glaser B. Theoretical Sensitivity. San Francisco: University of California San Francisco Press; 1978.
78.
78. Chamaz K. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000.
79.
79. Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1611–1625.
80.
80. BroadstockM, Michie S. Process of patient decision making: theoretical and methodological issues. Psychol Health. 2000;15:191– 204.
81.
81. MacPhail-Wilcox B, Bryant HD. Adescriptive model of decisionmaking: review of idiographic influences. J Res Develop Ed. 1988;22:7–22.
82.
82. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Physicians? And patients? Choices in evidence based practice. BMJ. 2002;324:1350-1350.
83.
83. Schneider EC, Eisenberg JM. Strategies and methods for aligning current and best medical practices. The role of information technologies. West J Med. 1998;168:311–318.
84.
84. Eisenberg JM. Globalize the evidence, localize the decision: evidence-based medicine and the international diversity. Health Affairs. 2002;21:166–168.
