传统、补充和结合医学(TCIM)使用者的健康信息寻求行为

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":"传统、补充和结合医学(TCIM)使用者的健康信息寻求行为","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:传统、补充和结合医学(TCIM)的使用在德国人群中很普遍,并受到各种动机的驱动,包括补充和避免使用传统医学治疗。本文的目的是研究这些动机与不同的健康信息寻求行为之间的关系。方法:基于德国在线访问面板的数据,采用回归分析方法,探讨2022年德国对TCIM的使用和接受程度。从这项研究中,我们使用了1,696名(18-75岁)个人的信息,他们使用TCIM(五点李克特量表的主观陈述)的动机不同,并使用TCIM治疗健康问题。结果:总体而言,TCIM被认为是一种促进健康的措施,而不是出于对传统医学的厌恶。我们对某些治疗程序的信息寻求行为的分析表明,随着受访者使用TCIM作为促进健康措施的倾向的增加,他们更有可能认为自己受到科学研究(AME: 0.04, p = 0.004)、个人建议(AME: 0.09, p = 0.000)和社交圈经验(AME: 0.08, p = 0.000)的影响。相比之下,由于厌恶传统医学而更多地使用TCIM的受访者不太可能认为自己受到科学研究(AME: -0.04, p = 0.004)和医生(AME: -0.07, p = 0.000)的影响。在分析受访者最重要的医疗信息来源时,我们的研究结果显示,出于厌恶而使用TCIM的个体越多,他们越有可能将(在线)媒体视为最重要的医疗资源(AME: 0.05, p = 0.000),而将医疗专业人员视为最重要的可能性降低(AME: 0.06, p = 0.000)。结论:使用TCIM的动机各不相同,并与个体健康信息寻求行为的差异相对应。除了这些与动机相关的差异之外,TCIM用户还重视医疗从业人员以外的健康信息来源。这就要求加强对医疗专业人员的TCIM培训,以提供高质量的咨询,并创建信誉良好的在线门户网站,以确保提供有关TCIM的可靠信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health information-seeking behavior among users of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM).

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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