Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2004; 9: 07
The aim of this study was to identify determinants of use of CAM for allergies and to assess psychosocial characteristics of German adults with allergies who do or do not use CAM.
In a population-based nested case-control study, computer-assisted telephone interviews were performed in 351 subjects with allergies (hay fever, asthma, atopic eczema and food hypersensitivity). Information on demographics, prevalence, motivation, CAM type and provider, costs, subjective assessment of complementary and conventional treatment and health-related quality of life (QoL) was obtained.
A total of 26.5% of participants used CAM [homoeopathy (35.3%), autologous blood injection (28.1%), acupuncture (16.6%), bioresonance (10.0%)] for their allergies. Users were significantly younger (age median 43 vs. 47) and better educated (school education > 8 years vs. ≤8 years: OR 2.17) than non-users and mostly motivated by the assumption of few side-effects (78.3%), the wish to try everything (71.7%) and unsatisfying results of conventional therapy (66.3%). CAM was predominantly provided by medical doctors (60.9%) and associated with overall costs of median 205 €. Users felt a greater impact on health-related QoL and scored the efficacy of conventional therapy significantly lower than non-users. The majority of users assessed the results of CAM as very or rather good (82.4%).
CAM is widely used for allergies in the general population and is associated with considerable costs. Users and non-users of CAM with allergies can be distinguished regarding their views on medical treatment and health-related QoL.
This study was exclusively funded by the German Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Technology (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, 01EG9703/7).
