Characterisation of complementary and alternative medicine use and its impact on medication adherence in inflammatory bowel disease

Summary Background  Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is common. We characterised CAM utilisation and assessed its impact on medical adherence in the IBD population. Aim  To characterise CAM utilisation and assess its impact on medical a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2012-02, Vol.35 (3), p.342-349
Hauptverfasser: Weizman, A. V., Ahn, E., Thanabalan, R., Leung, W., Croitoru, K., Silverberg, M. S., Hillary Steinhart, A., Nguyen, G. C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Summary Background  Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is common. We characterised CAM utilisation and assessed its impact on medical adherence in the IBD population. Aim  To characterise CAM utilisation and assess its impact on medical adherence in the IBD population. Methods  Inflammatory bowel disease patients recruited from an out‐patient clinic at a tertiary centre were asked to complete a questionnaire on CAM utilisation, conventional IBD therapy, demographics and communication with their gastroenterologist. Adherence was measured using the self‐reported Morisky scale. Demographics, clinical characteristics and self‐reported adherence among CAM and non‐CAM users were compared. Results  We recruited prospectively 380 IBD subjects (57% Crohn’s disease; 35% ulcerative colitis, and 8% indeterminate colitis). The prevalence of CAM use was 56% and did not significantly vary by type of IBD. The most common reason cited for using CAM was ineffectiveness of conventional IBD therapy (40%). The most popular form of CAM was probiotics (53%). CAM users were younger than non‐CAM users at diagnosis (21.2 vs. 26.2, P 
ISSN:0269-2813
1365-2036
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04956.x