Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2021 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 4

The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among Turkish patients with primary headache

Pages
1994–1999
Publication Date
2022-11-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Our results suggest that Turkish patients with primary headache, especially those with long disease duration, use CAM modalities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common in patients with primary headache.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The use and effect of 15 CAM modalities were evaluated in accordance with the Traditional and Complementary Medicine Regulations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our results suggest that Turkish patients with primary headache, especially those with long disease duration, use CAM modalities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common in patients with primary headache. However, no study has been reported in which standardized modalities were questioned in a Turkish population. The aim of the present study was to investigate the frequency of CAM use and factors related to it in these patients. Materials and methods: Patients with a diagnosis of primary headache were included in this cross-sectional observational study. Demographic and disease specific characteristics were recorded. The use and effect of 15 CAM modalities were evaluated in accordance with the Traditional and Complementary Medicine Regulations. The patients were categorized into two groups according to their use of CAM procedures. Logistic regression analysis was further performed to assess the association between CAM use and related factors. Results: One hundred twenty patients [101 (84.2%) female, mean age 38.20 ± 12.24 years] were included. Use of CAM was reported in 33.3% of the patients. The most frequently used CAM modalities were phytotherapy (37.5%), cupping (27.5%), and chiropractic adjustment (17.5%). Compared with nonusers, CAM users showed a longer duration of disease (respectively mean 5.68 ± 4.96 years and 10.97 ± 8.57 years, p = 0.000). There were no differences with respect to age, sex, education, presence of systemic disease, headache subtypes, number of headache days in a month, or headache severity. Patients who underwent cupping reported that they benefited more than those who tried phytotherapy and multiple CAM methods (respectively 45.5%, 33.3%, 16.6%, p = 0.039). Subsequently, the logistic regression analysis showed a significant association between only disease duration and CAM use [respectively p value, OR (95% CI), and confidence intervals = 0.002 (1.143 (1.050–1.243)]. Conclusion: Our results suggest that Turkish patients with primary headache, especially those with long disease duration, use CAM modalities. Larger population-based studies are required to clarify the safety and efficacy of these methods.Key words: Complementary and alternative medicine, primary headache, prevalence

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, B. S. A., SARILAR, A. Ç. (2022). The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among Turkish patients with primary headache. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 4, 1994–1999. https://ajindex.com/articles/609352

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders. 3rd ed. Cephalalgia 2018
  2. 38 (1): 1-211. doi: 10.1177/0333102417738202 2. Crawford CC, Huynh MT, Kepple A, Jonas WB. Systematic assessment of the quality of research studies of conventional and alternative treatment(s) of primary headache. Pain Physician 2009
  3. 12 (2): 461-470. 3. World Health Organization. Guidelines on developing consumer information on proper use of traditional, complementary and alternatives medicine. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO
  4. Geleneksel ve Tamamlayıcı Tıp Uygulamaları Yönetmeliği. Resmi Gazete 27.10.2014
  5. Sayı No: 29158. 5. Adams J, Barbery G, Lui CW. Complementary and alternative medicine use for headache and migraine: a critical review of the literature. Headache 2013
  6. doi: 10.1111/j.1526- 4610.2012.02271.x 6. Karakurum Göksel B, Coşkun Ö, Ucler S, Karatas M, Ozge A et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine by a sample of Turkish primary headache patients. Agri 2014
  7. 26 (1): 1-7. doi: 10.5505/agri.2014.04909 7. Ertem DH. The association between chronicity of migraine and complementary and alternative medication use: the Turkish perspective. European Neurology 2019
  8. 81 (1-2): 24-29. doi: 10.1159/000499910 8. Bıçakçı Ş, Öztürk M, Üçler S, Karlı N, Siva A. Başağrısı Tanı ve Tedavi Güncel Yaklaşımlar. İstanbul, Turkey: Galenos Yayınevi
  9. pp. 111-117 (in Turkish). 9. Baykan B, Ertas M, Karli N, Akat-Aktas S, Uzunkaya O et al. MIRA-Neurology Study Group. The burden of headache in neurology outpatient clinics in Turkey. Pain Practice 2007
  10. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2007.00154.x 10. Lambert TD, Morrison KM, Edwards J, Clarke CE. The use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients attending a UK headache clinic. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2010
  11. 18 (3-4): 128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2010.05.035 11. Gaul C, Eismann R, Schmidt T, May A, Leinisch E et al. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients suffering from primary headache disorders. Cephalalgia 2009
  12. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2009.01841.x 12. Krasenbaum LJ. A review of complementary and alternative medicine use among U.S. adults with headache or migraine: results from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. Headache 2017
  13. 57 (8): 1284-1285. doi: 10.1111/head.13163 13. Kristoffersen ES, Aaseth K, Grande RB, Lundqvist C, Russell MB. Self-reported efficacy o