Complementary and alternative medicine use among persons with multiple chronic conditions: results from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey

• Main Authors: Justice Mbizo (Author), Anthony Okafor (Author), Melanie A. Sutton (Author), Bryan Leyva (Author), Leauna M. Stone (Author), Oluwadamilola Olaku (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: BMC, 2018-10-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s12906-018-2342-2; 1472-6882
• Keywords: Complementary and alternative medicine; Chronic disease; Comorbidity; Diabetes; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypertension; Other systems of medicine; RZ201-999
• Source: BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2018)

Abstract Background Although a quarter of Americans are estimated to have multiple chronic conditions, information on the impact of chronic disease dyads and triads on use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is scarce. The purpose of this study is to: 1) estimate the prevalence and odds of CAM use among participants with hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; and 2) examine the effects of chronic condition dyads and triads on the use of CAM modalities, specifically manipulative and body-based methods, biological treatments, mind-body interventions, energy therapies, and alternative medical systems. Methods Data were obtained from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey and the Adult Alternative Medicine supplement. Statistical analyses were restricted to persons with self-reported hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, diabetes, or obesity (n = 15,463). Results Approximately 37.2% of the participants had just one of the four chronic conditions, while 62.4% self-reported multiple comorbidities. CAM use among participants was as follows (p < 0.001): hypercholesterolemia (31.5%), hypertension (28.3%), diabetes (25.0%), and obesity (10.8%). All combinations of disease dyads and triads were consistently and significantly associated with the use of mind-body interventions (2-4%, p < 0.001). Two sets of three dyads were associated with use of manipulative methods (23-27%, p < 0.05) and energy therapies (0.2-0.3%, p < 0.05). Use of biological treatments (0.04%, p < 0.05) and alternative systems (3%, p < 0.05) were each significant for one dyad. One triad was significant for use of manipulative methods (27%, p < 0.001). Conclusions These findings point to future directions for research and have practical implications for family practitioners treating multimorbid patients.