For instance, if 24% of IBD patients are using CAM specifically for their IBD, it begs the question as to whether or not the other 76% are quite satisfied with their conventional medical therapy. Alternatively, some of these patients might simply have not been informed about ‘nonconventional’ options. In this study, a high proportion of past CAM users reported negative outcomes with CAM: either a worsening of at least one of their symptoms (16%) or a perception that it had been a waste of money (33%).
This study also supports the notion that practitioners are aware of the use of CAM. A total of 71% of current CAM users had discussed their CAM use with their IBD doctor and only 13% believed that their doctor was not supportive of this practice.
The authors postulated that patients choose CAM to exert control over their destinies. Can doctors not give patients increased control with conventional medication by abdicating a paternalistic approach to practice and by not only involving patients in choosing their therapies but also encouraging ‘on demand’ approaches to a variety of therapies (including oral 5-aminosalicylic acid dosing, initiation of rectal therapy, and possibly even the use of oral corticosteroids)? Perhaps there are inexpensive and safe CAMs, such as dietary manipulation, exercise or prayer, that can be endorsed by conventional medical practitioners, either because these modalities make sense for IBD patients or because they are accessible to most patients in some form or another and can enhance a patient’s sense of control. You can soon shop with a nice pharmacy offering generic cialis professional to benefit more.
Category: Inflammatory bowel disease
Tags: CAM, IBD, Inflammatory bowel disease