Health information-seeking behavior among users of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM).

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Miriam Trübner, Alexander Patzina, Judith Lehmann, Benno Brinkhaus, Christian S Kessler, Rasmus Hoffmann
{"title":"Health information-seeking behavior among users of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM).","authors":"Miriam Trübner, Alexander Patzina, Judith Lehmann, Benno Brinkhaus, Christian S Kessler, Rasmus Hoffmann","doi":"10.1186/s12906-025-04843-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is widespread among the German population and driven by various motives, including both supplementing and avoiding treatments with conventional medicine. The aim of this article is to examine how these motives relate to different health information-seeking behaviors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study uses regression analysis based on data from a German online access panel, which explored the use and acceptance of TCIM in Germany in 2022. From this study, we use information on 1,696 individuals (aged 18-75 years) who vary in their motives for using TCIM (subjective statements on five-point Likert scales) and have used TCIM to treat health problems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, TCIM is considered more a health-promoting measure than it is driven by aversion towards conventional medicine. Our analysis of information-seeking behavior for certain therapeutic procedures reveals that, as respondents' propensity to use TCIM as a health-promoting measure rises, they are more likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: 0.04, p = 0.004), personal advice (AME: 0.09, p = 0.000), and their social circle's experiences (AME: 0.08, p = 0.000). In contrast, respondents who use TCIM more due to aversion to conventional medicine are less likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: -0.04, p = 0.004) and doctors (AME: -0.07, p = 0.000). When analyzing respondents' most important medical information source, our results reveal that the more individuals indicate using TCIM out of aversion, the more likely they are to consider (online) media outlets their most important medical resource (AME: 0.05, p = 0.000), while the likelihood of considering medical professionals most important decreases (AME -0.06, p = 0.000).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Motives behind TCIM use vary and correspond to differences in individuals' health information-seeking behavior. Beyond these motive-related differences, TCIM users value sources of health information other than their medical practitioners. This calls for an intensification of TCIM training among medical professionals to provide high-quality consultation and the creation of reputable online portals to ensure the provision of trustworthy information about TCIM.</p>","PeriodicalId":9128,"journal":{"name":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","volume":"25 1","pages":"111"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927221/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-04843-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is widespread among the German population and driven by various motives, including both supplementing and avoiding treatments with conventional medicine. The aim of this article is to examine how these motives relate to different health information-seeking behaviors.

Methods: The study uses regression analysis based on data from a German online access panel, which explored the use and acceptance of TCIM in Germany in 2022. From this study, we use information on 1,696 individuals (aged 18-75 years) who vary in their motives for using TCIM (subjective statements on five-point Likert scales) and have used TCIM to treat health problems.

Results: Overall, TCIM is considered more a health-promoting measure than it is driven by aversion towards conventional medicine. Our analysis of information-seeking behavior for certain therapeutic procedures reveals that, as respondents' propensity to use TCIM as a health-promoting measure rises, they are more likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: 0.04, p = 0.004), personal advice (AME: 0.09, p = 0.000), and their social circle's experiences (AME: 0.08, p = 0.000). In contrast, respondents who use TCIM more due to aversion to conventional medicine are less likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: -0.04, p = 0.004) and doctors (AME: -0.07, p = 0.000). When analyzing respondents' most important medical information source, our results reveal that the more individuals indicate using TCIM out of aversion, the more likely they are to consider (online) media outlets their most important medical resource (AME: 0.05, p = 0.000), while the likelihood of considering medical professionals most important decreases (AME -0.06, p = 0.000).

Conclusion: Motives behind TCIM use vary and correspond to differences in individuals' health information-seeking behavior. Beyond these motive-related differences, TCIM users value sources of health information other than their medical practitioners. This calls for an intensification of TCIM training among medical professionals to provide high-quality consultation and the creation of reputable online portals to ensure the provision of trustworthy information about TCIM.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
300
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信