↓ Skip to main content

Chronic low back pain patients’ use of, level of knowledge of and perceived benefits of complementary medicine: a cross-sectional study at an academic pain center

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chronic low back pain patients’ use of, level of knowledge of and perceived benefits of complementary medicine: a cross-sectional study at an academic pain center
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1708-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Dubois, Emmanuelle Scala, Mohamed Faouzi, Isabelle Decosterd, Bernard Burnand, Pierre-Yves Rodondi

Abstract

Chronic pain patients often use complementary medicine (CM) to alleviate their pain; however, little is known about the use of CM by chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients. We investigated the frequency of use of CM by cLBP patients, the perceived effects of these therapies, patients' knowledge regarding CM, and patient-physician communication regarding CM. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 2014 to February 2015. A questionnaire was distributed by physicians to 238 consecutive patients consulting for cLBP at the Pain Center of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Poisson regression model was used to analyze patients' level of knowledge regarding various CMs, and the logistic regression model was used to assess CM use for cLBP. The questionnaire was returned by 168 cLBP patients (response rate: 70.6%). Lifetime prevalence of CM use for cLBP was 77.3%. The most commonly used therapies were osteopathy (48.8%), massage (45.2%) and acupuncture (31.6%), rated for their usefulness on a 0-10 scale as a mean ± SD of 5.4 ± 2.7, 5.9 ± 2.5 and 3.8 ± 3.2, respectively. The CM treatment best known by patients was osteopathy, followed by massage and acupuncture. If their doctors proposed CM as a treatment for cLBP, 78% of participants reported being very or somewhat likely to try CM. Respondents with CM health insurance were more likely to use CM (OR = 2.26; 95%CI: 1.07-4.78; p = 0.031) for cLBP. Respondents having experienced cLBP for more than five years were more likely to use CM to treat their cLBP than respondents having experienced cLBP for one year or less (OR = 2.84; 95%CI: 1.02-7.88; p = 0.044). More than three-quarters of cLBP patients in our sample did use CM to treat their cLBP. The results showed that the most commonly used therapies were not necessarily the highest rated in terms of perceived usefulness. These results highlight the importance of developing integrative pain centers in which patients may obtain advice regarding CM treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Master 15 17%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 23%
Psychology 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,929,039
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,849
of 3,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,208
of 308,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#51
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.