Mind the gap! Lay and medical perceptions of risks associated with the use of alternative treatment and conventional medicine.

Forschende Komplementarmedizin Pub Date : 2015-01-01 Epub Date: 2015-02-19 DOI:10.1159/000376555
Anita Salamonsen
{"title":"Mind the gap! Lay and medical perceptions of risks associated with the use of alternative treatment and conventional medicine.","authors":"Anita Salamonsen","doi":"10.1159/000376555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies on the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) demonstrate that CAM users base their treatment decisions on both subjective, experience-based knowledge and medical knowledge. The aim of this study was to explore lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>In this explorative qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 Norwegian CAM users with cancer or multiple sclerosis and 12 doctors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The interviews revealed fundamental differences in risk perceptions influencing treatment decisions and risk communication in a clinical setting. While CAM users considered conventional medicine as potentially risky and related this to experiences of severe adverse effects, CAM was perceived as natural and safe. Doctors' risk perceptions were quite the contrary, mainly because of lack of scientific evidence for CAM as a safe and beneficial treatment option.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For the safety of CAM users, such divergent risk perceptions may have far-reaching consequences. CAM users should be taken seriously with their self-perception as decision-makers considering their approaches to experiences, knowledge, and science. An awareness of differing lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine in research, doctor-patient communication, and education of patients and doctors is thus important to optimize patient safety in complex health care systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":51049,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000376555","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000376555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Background: Studies on the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) demonstrate that CAM users base their treatment decisions on both subjective, experience-based knowledge and medical knowledge. The aim of this study was to explore lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine.

Patients and methods: In this explorative qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 Norwegian CAM users with cancer or multiple sclerosis and 12 doctors.

Results: The interviews revealed fundamental differences in risk perceptions influencing treatment decisions and risk communication in a clinical setting. While CAM users considered conventional medicine as potentially risky and related this to experiences of severe adverse effects, CAM was perceived as natural and safe. Doctors' risk perceptions were quite the contrary, mainly because of lack of scientific evidence for CAM as a safe and beneficial treatment option.

Conclusion: For the safety of CAM users, such divergent risk perceptions may have far-reaching consequences. CAM users should be taken seriously with their self-perception as decision-makers considering their approaches to experiences, knowledge, and science. An awareness of differing lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine in research, doctor-patient communication, and education of patients and doctors is thus important to optimize patient safety in complex health care systems.

小心空隙!非专业人士和医学人士对使用替代疗法和传统医学相关风险的认识。
背景:关于补充和替代医学(CAM)广泛使用的研究表明,CAM使用者的治疗决策既基于主观的、基于经验的知识,也基于医学知识。本研究的目的是探讨与CAM和传统医学相关的外行和医疗风险认知。患者和方法:在这项探索性质的研究中,我们对25名挪威癌症或多发性硬化症CAM使用者和12名医生进行了深入访谈。结果:访谈揭示了在临床环境中影响治疗决策和风险沟通的风险认知的根本差异。虽然辅助医学使用者认为传统医学有潜在风险,并将其与严重不良反应的经历联系起来,但辅助医学被认为是自然和安全的。医生的风险认知恰恰相反,这主要是因为缺乏科学证据证明CAM是一种安全有益的治疗选择。结论:对于CAM使用者的安全,这种不同的风险认知可能会产生深远的影响。作为决策者,CAM用户应该认真对待他们的自我认知,考虑他们获取经验、知识和科学的方法。因此,在研究、医患沟通以及对患者和医生的教育方面,认识到与CAM和传统医学相关的不同的非专业和医疗风险观念,对于优化复杂卫生保健系统中的患者安全非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forschende Komplementarmedizin
Forschende Komplementarmedizin 医学-全科医学与补充医学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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