PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: While many patients with neurological disorders and conditions use complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), little is known about the use, perceptions, and attitudes regarding CAIM among published neurology authors. With the increasing popularity of CAIM, our objective was to assess practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among published neurology authors.
METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of authors who had published articles in neurology journals indexed in MEDLINE. We emailed potential participants our cross-sectional electronic survey after extracting their email addresses from one of their publications in our sample of journals. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data from any open-ended questions.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 783 published neurology authors (1.7% response rate, 83.9% completion rate). Overall, respondents perceived CAIM to be promising in preventing, treating, and/or managing neurological diseases. Mind-body therapies received the most positive responses, indicated by over half of respondents cumulatively agreeing that they are promising (n = 368, 59.0%) and safe (n = 280, 50.3%). Whole medical systems and biofield therapy were less favourable. Most neurology clinicians reported a lack of formal (n = 211, 70.3%) and supplementary training (n = 158, 52.5%) on CAIM. Nearly half of clinicians did not feel comfortable counselling patients about CAIM therapies (n = 121, 44.5%), and over half did not feel comfortable recommending them (n = 161, 59.3%). A lack of scientific evidence for CAIM\'s safety and efficacy was reported as the greatest challenge to CAIM (n = 515, 92.5%). The majority of respondents believed there is value to conducting research on this topic (n = 461, 82.0%) and supported increasing allocation of research funding towards CAIM (n = 241, 58.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although many participants found CAIM to be promising to the field of neurology, the vast majority did not feel open to integrating CAIM into mainstream medical practices on account of a perceived lack of scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy. Future studies can use our findings to gather more detailed insights, improve educational resources on CAIM within neurology, as well as examine what effects a tailored CAIM education has on the perceptions and attitudes of published neurology authors towards CAIM.
METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey of authors who had published articles in neurology journals indexed in MEDLINE. We emailed potential participants our cross-sectional electronic survey after extracting their email addresses from one of their publications in our sample of journals. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data from any open-ended questions.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 783 published neurology authors (1.7% response rate, 83.9% completion rate). Overall, respondents perceived CAIM to be promising in preventing, treating, and/or managing neurological diseases. Mind-body therapies received the most positive responses, indicated by over half of respondents cumulatively agreeing that they are promising (n = 368, 59.0%) and safe (n = 280, 50.3%). Whole medical systems and biofield therapy were less favourable. Most neurology clinicians reported a lack of formal (n = 211, 70.3%) and supplementary training (n = 158, 52.5%) on CAIM. Nearly half of clinicians did not feel comfortable counselling patients about CAIM therapies (n = 121, 44.5%), and over half did not feel comfortable recommending them (n = 161, 59.3%). A lack of scientific evidence for CAIM\'s safety and efficacy was reported as the greatest challenge to CAIM (n = 515, 92.5%). The majority of respondents believed there is value to conducting research on this topic (n = 461, 82.0%) and supported increasing allocation of research funding towards CAIM (n = 241, 58.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although many participants found CAIM to be promising to the field of neurology, the vast majority did not feel open to integrating CAIM into mainstream medical practices on account of a perceived lack of scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy. Future studies can use our findings to gather more detailed insights, improve educational resources on CAIM within neurology, as well as examine what effects a tailored CAIM education has on the perceptions and attitudes of published neurology authors towards CAIM.
摘要：
背景：虽然许多患有神经系统疾病和疾病的患者使用补充，另类，和综合医学(CAIM)，对使用知之甚少，感知，以及发表的神经病学作者对CAIM的态度。随着CAIM的日益普及,我们的目标是评估实践，感知，以及发表的神经病学作者对CAIM的态度。
方法：我们对在MEDLINE索引的神经病学期刊上发表文章的作者进行了匿名在线调查。在从我们的期刊样本中的一份出版物中提取他们的电子邮件地址后，我们通过电子邮件向潜在参与者发送了我们的横断面电子调查。基本的描述性统计是从定量数据中得出的，主题内容分析用于分析来自任何开放式问题的定性数据。
结果：调查由783名发表的神经学作者完成（1.7%的反应率，完成率83.9%）。总的来说,受访者认为CAIM有希望预防，治疗,和/或管理神经系统疾病。身心疗法得到了最积极的回应，超过一半的受访者表示他们有希望（n=368，59.0％）和安全（n=280，50.3％）。整个医疗系统和生物场治疗不太有利。大多数神经科临床医生报告缺乏对CAIM的正式培训（n=211，70.3％）和补充培训（n=158，52.5％）。近一半的临床医生对CAIM疗法的咨询患者感到不舒服（n=121，44.5%），超过一半的人不愿意推荐他们(n=161，59.3%)。据报道，缺乏CAIM安全性和有效性的科学证据是CAIM面临的最大挑战（n=515，92.5%）。大多数受访者认为对该主题进行研究是有价值的（n=461，82.0％），并支持增加对CAIM的研究资金分配（n=241，58.9％）。
结论：尽管许多参与者发现CAIM对神经病学领域很有希望，绝大多数人不愿意将CAIM纳入主流医疗实践,因为他们认为其安全性和有效性缺乏科学证据.未来的研究可以利用我们的发现来收集更详细的见解，改善神经病学CAIM的教育资源，以及研究量身定制的CAIM教育对已发表的神经病学作者对CAIM的看法和态度有何影响。
方法：我们对在MEDLINE索引的神经病学期刊上发表文章的作者进行了匿名在线调查。在从我们的期刊样本中的一份出版物中提取他们的电子邮件地址后，我们通过电子邮件向潜在参与者发送了我们的横断面电子调查。基本的描述性统计是从定量数据中得出的，主题内容分析用于分析来自任何开放式问题的定性数据。
结果：调查由783名发表的神经学作者完成（1.7%的反应率，完成率83.9%）。总的来说,受访者认为CAIM有希望预防，治疗,和/或管理神经系统疾病。身心疗法得到了最积极的回应，超过一半的受访者表示他们有希望（n=368，59.0％）和安全（n=280，50.3％）。整个医疗系统和生物场治疗不太有利。大多数神经科临床医生报告缺乏对CAIM的正式培训（n=211，70.3％）和补充培训（n=158，52.5％）。近一半的临床医生对CAIM疗法的咨询患者感到不舒服（n=121，44.5%），超过一半的人不愿意推荐他们(n=161，59.3%)。据报道，缺乏CAIM安全性和有效性的科学证据是CAIM面临的最大挑战（n=515，92.5%）。大多数受访者认为对该主题进行研究是有价值的（n=461，82.0％），并支持增加对CAIM的研究资金分配（n=241，58.9％）。
结论：尽管许多参与者发现CAIM对神经病学领域很有希望，绝大多数人不愿意将CAIM纳入主流医疗实践,因为他们认为其安全性和有效性缺乏科学证据.未来的研究可以利用我们的发现来收集更详细的见解，改善神经病学CAIM的教育资源，以及研究量身定制的CAIM教育对已发表的神经病学作者对CAIM的看法和态度有何影响。
