El médico y la medicina alternativa
Objective: To determine the knowledge and quantify the level of acceptance and indication that the current physician has about alternative or complementary medicine (MAC). Material and methods: A protocolized, descriptive and cross-sectional study through a self-administered, anonymous and validat...
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | Revista Médica Universitaria |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/fichas.php?idobjeto=9702 |
| Sumario: | Objective: To determine the knowledge and quantify the level of acceptance and
indication that the current physician has about alternative or complementary
medicine (MAC). Material and methods: A protocolized, descriptive and cross-sectional study through a self-administered, anonymous and validated survey, sent online, with open and closed questions of the opinion and knowledge of the MAC physician, acceptance, indication and experience on the subject. Staff physicians (MS) and medical residents (MR) were included. Statistical analysis: measures of central tendency, dispersion measures, chi square (p <0.05) Results: 100 physicians were surveyed; 54 MS and 46 MR, 65% women; average age: 37.2 (SD ± 12) years. 22% did not know the definition of MAC and 26% did not know the conventional medicine (MConv). 48% accept the MAC, being 28% MR (p <0.05), 31% reject it partially, while 16% do not have a clear opinion. When asked about existence and
knowledge acupuncture, yoga, reiki, chiropractic, pilates, hydrotherapy, music therapy, massage and reflexology, ozone therapy and hyperbaric chamber, tai chi,
magnetic therapy, deep breathing, homeopathy, reflexotherapy and medicinal
plants were the most frequent. Knowledge of its existence was related to its indication (p <0.05). The most frequent symptoms were: pain 89%, stress 87% and depressive
syndrome 61%. For 74%, the most widely used means of dissemination is "word of
mouth" and for 54% advertising. Physicians believe that the MAC is successful because 75% say there is an insufficient response to MConv, 63% think that the patient is not contained, 44% "to try everything". 40% think that MAC providers earn more than them. 53% would not recommend it to their patients. If the patient tells them that he is going to MAC, 58% think that he "would let
him decide", 51% worry about implications, 8% would tell him "not to return to his
office". 45% have experienced the MAC. 64% have talked with their patients about MAC; 39% are indifferent to those who practice it. 54% think that there is informal training, 45% that there is no scientific evidence, 35% that there is no serious bibliography. 46% would accept its use in health institutions. In relation to the MAC 51% would accept training, 63% have an interest in seeking information and 64% would support inclusion in the faculty (59% MR). 41% would collaborate to transform it into a serious and controlled practice 45% think that the MAC fails because the expected results are not obtained; 37% think that MAC and Mconv are necessary.
Conclusion: It is interesting the lack of knowledge of the MAC by the doctors surveyed, half of them would not recommend their patients or relatives the MAC, more than 40% have experienced them and think that there is no scientific evidence, but would accept the use in health institutions and collaborate in transform it into a serious practice. A high percentage has an interest in training, searching for information, and including it in undergraduate teaching. 37% think that the
coexistence between MAC and MConv is necessary. |
|---|
