Search

Objectives: Up to 87% of women are using some form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during their pregnancy, and this study was conducted to investigate the information sources that these women find influential in relation to such use. Design: The study sample was obtained via the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. This article is based on a substudy of 1835 pregnant women who were surveyed in 2010. The women answered questions about CAM use, pregnancy-related health concerns, and influential information sources in relation to CAM use. Logistic regression models were used to determine the information sources that women reported as influential in their decision making regarding CAM use. Results: Of the respondents ( n=1835, 79.2% response rate), 48.1% ( n=623) of the pregnant women consulted a CAM practitioner and 91.7% ( n=1485) used a CAM product during pregnancy. The results show that, of the women who used CAM, nearly half (48%, n=493) were influenced by their own personal experience of CAM and 43% ( n=423) by family and friends. Other popular sources of information were general practitioners 27% ( n=263), the media (television, radio, books, magazines, newspapers) 22% ( n=220), obstetricians 21% ( n=208) and midwives 19% ( n=190). Numerous statistically significant associations between influential information sources and pregnancy-related health conditions were identified. Conclusions: Women utilize a wide variety of information sources regarding their CAM use during pregnancy. Nonprofessional sources of information were found to be particularly influential, and maternity health care professionals need to have a nonjudgmental and open discussion with women about their CAM use during pregnancy in order to ensure safe and effective maternal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study examines involvement with a range of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) during pregnancy on the use of pharmacologic (PPMT) and nonpharmacologic (NPMT) pain management techniques for labor and birth. Design: Longitudinal analysis of survey data. Participants: A substudy ( n=2445) of the 'young' cohort of the nationally representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health was conducted. Outcome measures : Use of PPMT and NPMT during labor and birth. Results: The survey was completed by 1835 women (response rate, 79.2%). Most respondents used either intrapartum PPMT (81.9%) or NPMT (74.4%). Many (60.7%) used some form of CAM during pregnancy and also used PPMT during birth. More than two thirds of women (66.7%) who used NPMT used CAM during pregnancy. There was a general trend of increased likelihood of NPMT use by women who applied CAM during pregnancy. There was an inverse effect on use of epidural analgesia for women who consumed herbal teas during pregnancy (odds ratio, 0.60). Conclusions: Because of the study design, this paper does not confirm a causative relationship between the use of CAM during pregnancy and intrapartum pain management choices. It does, however, indicate that the use of CAM during pregnancy may not significantly affect the uptake of intrapartum PPMT, despite possible attempts to reduce PPMT by using NPMT. It also highlights the possibility of potential interactions between CAM and PPMT, given the high prevalence of concomitant use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "The Association Between Women's Choice of Birth Setting and Their Use of CAM During Labor and Birth" by Amie Steel, David Sibbritt, Jon Adams, Jane Frawley, Alex Broom and Cindy Gallois is presented.