{"title":"克罗恩病和溃疡性结肠炎患者使用补充和替代药物的动机。","authors":"Natasha Klemm, Roberto Trasolini, Brian Bressler, Gregory Rosenfeld, Gina Almasan, Yvette Leung","doi":"10.1093/jcag/gwae020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and impacts compliance with conventional treatment. Gastroenterologists should understand the motivational factors of CAM use-factors that <i>push</i> patients away from standard therapy or <i>pull</i> towards CAM. Our study describes the motivations behind CAM use for IBD and evaluates differences between Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort survey of patients over 18 years old with IBD, evaluated by gastroenterologists at a tertiary care referral centre from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Only patients who reported CAM use were included. Chi-square and independent <i>t</i>-tests were performed and <i>P</i>-value <0.05 was significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 230 completed surveys, 193 reported CAM use (CD: 57.5% vs UC: 42.5%). Demographics, disease duration, and hospitalizations were similar, but CD patients had lower SIBDQ scores (CD: 48.1 vs UC: 53.5, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Both groups were largely influenced by their social network to use CAM (CD: 33% vs UC: 31.3%) and did not feel well informed about CAM (87.4%). CD and UC patients had similar push and pull factors. Push factors included lack of improvement (39%) and side effects (20%) with conventional treatment. Pull factors included the desire for a holistic approach (21%) and to improve mood (35%). UC patients wanted a natural approach to treat their IBD, which nearly reached significance (<i>P</i> = 0.049). Most patients hoped fatigue 62.7%, and diarrhoea 61.7% would improve with CAM, but more CD patients wanted to improve their appetite (<i>P</i> = 0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite differences in QoL, push and pull motivations for CAM use did not differ between CD and UC patients. Most users do not feel well informed of CAM and ongoing dialogue is important for patient-centred care.</p>","PeriodicalId":17263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11477972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motivations behind complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.\",\"authors\":\"Natasha Klemm, Roberto Trasolini, Brian Bressler, Gregory Rosenfeld, Gina Almasan, Yvette Leung\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jcag/gwae020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and impacts compliance with conventional treatment. Gastroenterologists should understand the motivational factors of CAM use-factors that <i>push</i> patients away from standard therapy or <i>pull</i> towards CAM. Our study describes the motivations behind CAM use for IBD and evaluates differences between Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort survey of patients over 18 years old with IBD, evaluated by gastroenterologists at a tertiary care referral centre from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Only patients who reported CAM use were included. Chi-square and independent <i>t</i>-tests were performed and <i>P</i>-value <0.05 was significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 230 completed surveys, 193 reported CAM use (CD: 57.5% vs UC: 42.5%). Demographics, disease duration, and hospitalizations were similar, but CD patients had lower SIBDQ scores (CD: 48.1 vs UC: 53.5, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Both groups were largely influenced by their social network to use CAM (CD: 33% vs UC: 31.3%) and did not feel well informed about CAM (87.4%). CD and UC patients had similar push and pull factors. Push factors included lack of improvement (39%) and side effects (20%) with conventional treatment. Pull factors included the desire for a holistic approach (21%) and to improve mood (35%). UC patients wanted a natural approach to treat their IBD, which nearly reached significance (<i>P</i> = 0.049). Most patients hoped fatigue 62.7%, and diarrhoea 61.7% would improve with CAM, but more CD patients wanted to improve their appetite (<i>P</i> = 0.043).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite differences in QoL, push and pull motivations for CAM use did not differ between CD and UC patients. Most users do not feel well informed of CAM and ongoing dialogue is important for patient-centred care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11477972/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwae020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwae020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在炎症性肠病(IBD)患者中,使用补充和替代医学(CAM)很常见,而且会影响患者对常规治疗的依从性。肠胃病学家应该了解使用 CAM 的动机因素,即促使患者放弃标准疗法或转向 CAM 的因素。我们的研究描述了使用 CAM 治疗 IBD 的动机,并评估了克罗恩病(CD)和溃疡性结肠炎(UC)患者之间的差异:对18岁以上的IBD患者进行回顾性队列调查,由一家三级医疗转诊中心的消化科医生在2019年1月1日至12月31日期间进行评估。仅纳入报告使用 CAM 的患者。进行了卡方检验和独立 t 检验,并得出了 P 值:在完成的 230 份调查问卷中,有 193 份报告了 CAM 的使用情况(CD:57.5% vs UC:42.5%)。人口统计学、病程和住院情况相似,但 CD 患者的 SIBDQ 分数较低(CD:48.1 vs UC:53.5,P <0.001)。两组患者在很大程度上都受其社交网络的影响而使用 CAM(CD:33% vs UC:31.3%),并且都不太了解 CAM(87.4%)。CD 和 UC 患者的推拉因素相似。推动因素包括传统治疗效果不佳(39%)和副作用(20%)。拉动因素包括希望采用整体方法(21%)和改善情绪(35%)。UC 患者希望采用自然方法治疗他们的 IBD,这一点几乎达到了显著性水平(P = 0.049)。大多数患者希望通过 CAM 改善疲劳(62.7%)和腹泻(61.7%),但更多的 CD 患者希望改善食欲(P = 0.043):尽管 QoL 存在差异,但 CD 和 UC 患者使用 CAM 的推拉动机并无不同。大多数使用者并不了解 CAM,而持续的对话对于以患者为中心的护理非常重要。
Motivations behind complementary and alternative medicine use in patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and impacts compliance with conventional treatment. Gastroenterologists should understand the motivational factors of CAM use-factors that push patients away from standard therapy or pull towards CAM. Our study describes the motivations behind CAM use for IBD and evaluates differences between Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients.
Methods: Retrospective cohort survey of patients over 18 years old with IBD, evaluated by gastroenterologists at a tertiary care referral centre from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Only patients who reported CAM use were included. Chi-square and independent t-tests were performed and P-value <0.05 was significant.
Results: Of the 230 completed surveys, 193 reported CAM use (CD: 57.5% vs UC: 42.5%). Demographics, disease duration, and hospitalizations were similar, but CD patients had lower SIBDQ scores (CD: 48.1 vs UC: 53.5, P < 0.001). Both groups were largely influenced by their social network to use CAM (CD: 33% vs UC: 31.3%) and did not feel well informed about CAM (87.4%). CD and UC patients had similar push and pull factors. Push factors included lack of improvement (39%) and side effects (20%) with conventional treatment. Pull factors included the desire for a holistic approach (21%) and to improve mood (35%). UC patients wanted a natural approach to treat their IBD, which nearly reached significance (P = 0.049). Most patients hoped fatigue 62.7%, and diarrhoea 61.7% would improve with CAM, but more CD patients wanted to improve their appetite (P = 0.043).
Conclusion: Despite differences in QoL, push and pull motivations for CAM use did not differ between CD and UC patients. Most users do not feel well informed of CAM and ongoing dialogue is important for patient-centred care.