English
norskMind the Gap! Lay and Medical Perceptions of Risks Associated with the Use of Alternative Treatment and Conventional Medicine
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/10084
Dato
2015-02-19Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Sammendrag
Studies of the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)
demonstrate that CAM users relate to both subjective, experience-based knowledge and
medical knowledge in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to explore lay and
medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine.
Patients and Methods Twenty-five Norwegian users of CAM who were diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis and 12 of their doctors participated in in-depth interviews in an explorative, qualitative study.
Results Rather fundamental differences in risk perceptions were revealed that influenced treatment decisions and risk communication in clinical encounters. While the CAM users considered conventional medicine as potentially risky and related this to experiences of severe adverse effects of conventional treatments, they perceived CAM as “natural” and “safe”. Doctors‟ risk perceptions were quite the contrary, mainly because of lack of scientific evidence for CAM as safe and beneficial.
Conclusion For the safety of CAM users, such divergent risk perceptions may have far reaching consequences. CAM users need to be met where they actually position themselves as decision–makers based on their approaches to experiences, knowledge, and science. An awareness of differing lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine both in research, doctor-patient communication, and education of patients and doctors is thus important to optimize patient safety in complex health societies.
Patients and Methods Twenty-five Norwegian users of CAM who were diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis and 12 of their doctors participated in in-depth interviews in an explorative, qualitative study.
Results Rather fundamental differences in risk perceptions were revealed that influenced treatment decisions and risk communication in clinical encounters. While the CAM users considered conventional medicine as potentially risky and related this to experiences of severe adverse effects of conventional treatments, they perceived CAM as “natural” and “safe”. Doctors‟ risk perceptions were quite the contrary, mainly because of lack of scientific evidence for CAM as safe and beneficial.
Conclusion For the safety of CAM users, such divergent risk perceptions may have far reaching consequences. CAM users need to be met where they actually position themselves as decision–makers based on their approaches to experiences, knowledge, and science. An awareness of differing lay and medical risk perceptions associated with CAM and conventional medicine both in research, doctor-patient communication, and education of patients and doctors is thus important to optimize patient safety in complex health societies.