Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2006; 11: 48
The purpose of this study is to characterise herbal product use (prevalence, types, indications) among certified nurse midwives/certified midwives (CNMs/CMs) and licensed midwives (LMs) practicing in the state of California. A secondary intent is to describe training related to herbal products received by midwives during midwifery education.
A list of LMs and CNMs/CMs practicing in California was obtained through the California Medical Board (CMB) and the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM), respectively. The survey was mailed to 343 CNMs/CMs (one-third of the ACNM mailing list) and 157 LMs (the complete CMB mailing list).
Of the 500 surveys mailed, 40 were undeliverable, 146 were returned (31.7% response rate) and seven were excluded. Of the 139 completed surveys, 58/102 (56.9%) of CNMs/CMs and 35/37 (94.6%) of LMs used herbs. LMs were more comfortable than CNMs/CMs in recommending herbs to their patients. LMs and CNMs/CMs used herbs, respectively, for the following conditions: fertility (44.4 vs. 7.1%), nausea/vomiting (85.4 vs. 82.3%), anemia (91.7 vs. 38.6%), pre-term labour/contraction/bleeding (63.9 vs. 12.3%), malpresentation/breech (55.5 vs. 28.0%), labour induction (88.9 vs. 57.9%), dysfunctional labour/prolonged latent phase (80.6 vs. 19.3%), labour anesthesia/analgesia (41.7 vs. 14.0%), perineal healing/comfort (100 vs. 47.4%), post-partum depression (63.9 vs. 17.9%) and lactation (86.1 vs. 65.0%).
LMs are more likely than CNMs/CMs to use herbs in clinical practice. This trend is likely a reflection of the amount of educational training devoted to herbs as well as herbal use limitations that may be encountered in institutional facilities.
