The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A pilot study to compare the views of traditionally trained and CAM-trained therapists using the clinical exemplar of the management of neck/upper limb pain to assess barriers to effective integration of approaches

Record type: Article

Background: in the UK, patients frequently choose complementary (CAM) therapies, particularly for chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions. It is widely agreed that better integration of complementary and traditional healthcare is desirable. We piloted the Benefits and Risks of Treatment Questionnaire to compare the views of different healthcare practitioners about traditional and alternative approaches in one clinical scenario in order to assessbarriers to effectiveintegration.

Methods: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare practitioners (primary care practitioners, physiotherapists, pharmacists, osteopaths, chiropractors and acupuncturists) in the UK. The views of all healthcare providers were compared using the exemplar of neck, shoulder and upper arm pain to explore the perceived risks and benefits of different types of therapeutic intervention using a mathematical cluster approach.

Results: 448/1254 (36%) useable replies were received representing all six professions. A mean of 14.9 years of experience was reported by participants. The cluster analyses revealed distinct clusters of opinion of benefit: primary care physicians, physiotherapists and pharmacists were significantly more likely to rate a cluster including: anti-inflammatory drugs, steroid injections, steroids, physiotherapy, paracetamol and antidepressants as beneficial for neck, shoulder and upper arm pain. In contrast, osteopaths and chiropractors, but not physiotherapists were significantly more likely to rate a cluster including chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy as beneficial.

Conclusion: the Beliefs about Risks and Benefits of Treatments Questionnaire can be applied using a postal approach and achieves similar response rates to other surveys amongst healthcare practitioners. Despite widespread agreement that increased integration of traditional and alternative approaches is desirable, the results of this study suggest that experienced practitioners show the strongest belief in the benefit of approaches closest to their own training and background and the most wariness of risk to those therapies furthest from their background

Full text not available from this repository.

Citation

Denyer, Karen, Smith, Helen, Davies, Kevin, Horne, Rob, Hankins, Matthew and Walker-Bone, Karen (2012) A pilot study to compare the views of traditionally trained and CAM-trained therapists using the clinical exemplar of the management of neck/upper limb pain to assess barriers to effective integration of approaches Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 20, (1-2), pp. 38-44. (doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2011.10.004). (PMID:22305247).

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: November 2011
Published date: February 2012
Keywords: cam, osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, healthcare professional
Organisations: Faculty of Health Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 343728
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/343728
ISSN: 0965-2299
PURE UUID: cd273997-55d6-479f-aa5c-584748f1f7bd

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 12 Oct 2012 08:10
Last modified: 18 Jul 2017 05:21

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Karen Denyer
Author: Helen Smith
Author: Kevin Davies
Author: Rob Horne
Author: Matthew Hankins

University divisions


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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×