Authors: Paolo Rossia, Paola Torelli, Cherubino Di Lorenzoa, Grazia Sancesb, Gian Camillo Manzonic, Cristina Tassorelli, Giuseppe Nappib
Source: Complement Ther Med. 2008 Aug;16(4):220-7
Objectives: To evaluate the rates, pattern, satisfaction with, and presence of predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in a clinical population of patients with cluster headache (CH).
Design and setting: One hundred CH patients attending one of three headache clinics were asked to undergo a physician-administered structured interview designed to gather information on CAM use.
Results: Past use of CAM therapies was reported by 29% of the patients surveyed, with 10% having used CAM in the previous year. Only 8% of the therapies used were perceived as effective, while a partial effectiveness was reported in 28% of CAM treatments. The most common source of recommendation of CAM was a friend or relative (54%). Approximately 62% of CAM users had not informed their medical doctors of their CAM use. The most common reason for deciding to try a CAM therapy was that it offered a ‘‘potential improvement of headache’’ (44.8%). Univariate analysis showed that CAM users had a higher income, had a higher lifetime number of conventional medical doctor visits, had consulted more headache specialists, had a higher number of CH attacks per year, and had a significantly higher proportion of chronic CH versus episodic CH. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed and two variables remained as significant predictors of CAM use: income level (OR = 5.7, CI = 1.6—9.1, p = 0.01), and number of attacks per year (OR = 3.08, CI = 1.64—6.7, p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that CH patients, in their need of and quest for care, seek and explore both conventional and CAM approaches, even though only a very small minority finds them very satisfactory.
Download and read full article at Science Direct.