What Do Academic Physicians Think of Tai Chi? A Qualitative Study.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE Journal of alternative and complementary medicine Pub Date : 2021-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-27 DOI:10.1089/acm.2020.0418
Patricia Huston, Deirdre MacGuigan
{"title":"What Do Academic Physicians Think of Tai Chi? A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Patricia Huston,&nbsp;Deirdre MacGuigan","doi":"10.1089/acm.2020.0418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Although there is extensive evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Tai Chi maintains health, prevents injury, and mitigates the effects of a number of chronic diseases, it appears that physicians do not commonly recommend it. The objective of this study was to understand academic physicians' views on Tai Chi and why there is an apparent gap between the evidence on Tai Chi and its application in practice. <b><i>Design:</i></b> A qualitative study was conducted using purposive and snowball sampling and semistructured interviews with 15 academic physicians in 6 countries: Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. The interviews were recorded and transcribed and then coded and analyzed with NVivo 12 software. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All participants were aware of Tai Chi. More than half had never attended a continuing education event where Tai Chi was mentioned or read a scientific article on it. Most had seen or heard of science-based evidence on it, and a few were well versed in the literature in their area of expertise. Almost three-quarters of physicians interviewed thought Tai Chi <i>could be</i> a therapeutic option; however, when asked how often they recommended Tai Chi, about a third indicated never, about a half said only occasionally, and a few identified it regularly. Three factors-lack of access, lack of both physician and patient awareness, and an anticipated lack of patient receptivity to it-seemed to account for most of the hesitation to recommend it. Some thought Tai Chi may be seen as foreign. All made useful suggestions on how to increase the uptake of Tai Chi, including learning from other physicians and integrating more of the evidence into knowledge products, as well as learning more about Tai Chi in undergraduate and continuing medical education. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> This exploratory study found that although all the academic physicians interviewed had heard about Tai Chi, most were unaware of the extent of evidence from RCTs supporting its therapeutic effects. To apply this evidence in their practice, they wanted to learn more about it from other physicians, have better integration of the evidence into medical knowledge products, and know that there was access, and patient receptivity, to Tai Chi classes in the communities where they practiced.</p>","PeriodicalId":14944,"journal":{"name":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","volume":"27 5","pages":"434-441"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2020.0418","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Although there is extensive evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Tai Chi maintains health, prevents injury, and mitigates the effects of a number of chronic diseases, it appears that physicians do not commonly recommend it. The objective of this study was to understand academic physicians' views on Tai Chi and why there is an apparent gap between the evidence on Tai Chi and its application in practice. Design: A qualitative study was conducted using purposive and snowball sampling and semistructured interviews with 15 academic physicians in 6 countries: Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. The interviews were recorded and transcribed and then coded and analyzed with NVivo 12 software. Results: All participants were aware of Tai Chi. More than half had never attended a continuing education event where Tai Chi was mentioned or read a scientific article on it. Most had seen or heard of science-based evidence on it, and a few were well versed in the literature in their area of expertise. Almost three-quarters of physicians interviewed thought Tai Chi could be a therapeutic option; however, when asked how often they recommended Tai Chi, about a third indicated never, about a half said only occasionally, and a few identified it regularly. Three factors-lack of access, lack of both physician and patient awareness, and an anticipated lack of patient receptivity to it-seemed to account for most of the hesitation to recommend it. Some thought Tai Chi may be seen as foreign. All made useful suggestions on how to increase the uptake of Tai Chi, including learning from other physicians and integrating more of the evidence into knowledge products, as well as learning more about Tai Chi in undergraduate and continuing medical education. Conclusions: This exploratory study found that although all the academic physicians interviewed had heard about Tai Chi, most were unaware of the extent of evidence from RCTs supporting its therapeutic effects. To apply this evidence in their practice, they wanted to learn more about it from other physicians, have better integration of the evidence into medical knowledge products, and know that there was access, and patient receptivity, to Tai Chi classes in the communities where they practiced.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学术医师如何看待太极拳?定性研究。
背景:尽管随机对照试验(rct)中有大量证据表明,太极拳可以保持健康,防止受伤,减轻许多慢性疾病的影响,但医生似乎通常不推荐太极拳。本研究的目的是了解学术医师对太极拳的看法,以及为什么太极拳的证据与实践应用之间存在明显的差距。设计:采用有目的、滚雪球抽样和半结构化访谈对澳大利亚、加拿大、法国、新西兰、荷兰和美国等6个国家的15名学术医师进行定性研究。对访谈内容进行记录和转录,然后用NVivo 12软件进行编码和分析。结果:所有参与者都知道太极。超过一半的人从未参加过提及太极的继续教育活动或阅读过有关太极的科学文章。大多数人都看过或听说过基于科学的证据,少数人精通他们专业领域的文献。近四分之三的受访医生认为太极拳可能是一种治疗选择;然而,当被问及多久推荐一次太极拳时,大约三分之一的人表示从不推荐,大约一半的人说偶尔推荐,还有一些人经常推荐。三个因素——缺乏途径,医生和病人都缺乏意识,以及预期病人对它缺乏接受能力——似乎解释了大多数犹豫是否推荐它的原因。一些人认为太极可能被视为外来的。所有人都就如何增加太极拳的吸收提出了有用的建议,包括向其他医生学习,将更多的证据整合到知识产品中,以及在本科和继续医学教育中更多地学习太极拳。结论:这项探索性研究发现,尽管所有接受采访的学术医师都听说过太极拳,但大多数人都不知道随机对照试验支持太极拳治疗效果的证据程度。为了将这些证据应用到他们的实践中,他们想从其他医生那里了解更多,更好地将这些证据整合到医学知识产品中,并且知道在他们练习的社区里有机会和病人接受太极课程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine 医学-全科医学与补充医学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: Paradigm, Practice, and Policy Advancing Integrative Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal providing scientific research for the evaluation and integration of complementary and alternative medicine into mainstream medical practice. The Journal delivers original research that directly impacts patient care therapies, protocols, and strategies, ultimately improving the quality of healing. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine coverage includes: -Botanical Medicine -Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine -Other Traditional Medicine Practices -Mind-Body Medicine -Nutrition and Dietary Supplements -Integrative Health / Medicine -Yoga -Ayurveda -Naturopathy -Creative Arts Therapies -Integrative Whole Systems / Whole Practices -Homeopathy -Tai Chi -Qi Gong -Massage Therapy -Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine -Integrative Cost Studies / Comparative Effectiveness -Neurostimulation -Integrative Biophysics
期刊最新文献
Retracted: Music Therapy: A Core Service in Integrative Palliative Care. Yoga Interventions Used for the Rehabilitation of Stroke, Parkinson's Disease, and Multiple Sclerosis: A Scoping Review of Clinical Research. Effectiveness of Inhaled Aromatherapy on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review. Can Tai Chi Improve Cognitive Function? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Naturopathic Management of Urinary Tract Infections: A Retrospective Chart Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1