An exploratory qualitative study to investigate how patients evaluate complementary and conventional medicine
An exploratory qualitative study to investigate how patients evaluate complementary and conventional medicine
Objective: we wish to determine the constructs used by patients to evaluate conventional and complementary medicine (CAM), prioritise these constructs and determine how these characterise patients‘ choice for CAM and conventional medicine.
Methods: a repertory grid technique was employed, in interviews of 20 patients, 10 from a general practice and 10 from a CAM clinic.
Results: CAM was used with greater frequency in chronic illness and generated more constructs than conventional medicine, although the constructs were similar. The priorities for these constructs were different: specificity of treatment and severity of illness were prioritised for conventional medicine and lack of science was prioritised for CAM. The CAM characteristic most commonly cited was non-chemical.
Conclusion: this exploratory initial study suggests that people use very similar criteria to evaluate CAM and conventional medicine. Their choice of treatment was based largely on the type of illness from which they were suffering. Further research is needed in this area.
69-77
Lewith, G.T.
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Chan, J.
7c9ec89b-38f8-4209-9b2f-a067d54621c1
June 2002
Lewith, G.T.
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Chan, J.
7c9ec89b-38f8-4209-9b2f-a067d54621c1
Lewith, G.T. and Chan, J.
(2002)
An exploratory qualitative study to investigate how patients evaluate complementary and conventional medicine.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 10 (2), .
(doi:10.1054/ctim.2002.0524).
Abstract
Objective: we wish to determine the constructs used by patients to evaluate conventional and complementary medicine (CAM), prioritise these constructs and determine how these characterise patients‘ choice for CAM and conventional medicine.
Methods: a repertory grid technique was employed, in interviews of 20 patients, 10 from a general practice and 10 from a CAM clinic.
Results: CAM was used with greater frequency in chronic illness and generated more constructs than conventional medicine, although the constructs were similar. The priorities for these constructs were different: specificity of treatment and severity of illness were prioritised for conventional medicine and lack of science was prioritised for CAM. The CAM characteristic most commonly cited was non-chemical.
Conclusion: this exploratory initial study suggests that people use very similar criteria to evaluate CAM and conventional medicine. Their choice of treatment was based largely on the type of illness from which they were suffering. Further research is needed in this area.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: June 2002
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 24374
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/24374
ISSN: 0965-2299
PURE UUID: e9b6dc2e-281d-479d-9664-cab522e2c89b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 Mar 2006
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 06:55
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
G.T. Lewith
Author:
J. Chan
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics