IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0184979.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center

Author

Listed:
  • Eleonore Aveni
  • Brent Bauer
  • Anne-Sylvie Ramelet
  • Isabelle Decosterd
  • Pierluigi Ballabeni
  • Eric Bonvin
  • Pierre-Yves Rodondi

Abstract

Background: Complementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM. Objective: To assess healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital. Design and participants: The cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire. Main measures: Factors influencing healthcare professionals’ opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM. Key results: The questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals’ opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses’ and midwives’ opinion compared to physicians’ (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35–4.05], P

Suggested Citation

  • Eleonore Aveni & Brent Bauer & Anne-Sylvie Ramelet & Isabelle Decosterd & Pierluigi Ballabeni & Eric Bonvin & Pierre-Yves Rodondi, 2017. "Healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-11, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184979
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184979
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184979&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0184979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0184979. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.