Regular Article
How the public classify complementary medicine: a factor analytic study

https://doi.org/10.1054/ctim.2000.0355Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives: To see how lay people group or classify various CAM therapies. Design: Nearly 600 adults rated 39 relatively familiar branches of complementary medicine on four dimensions: whether they had heard of it, whether they think they know how it works; whether they had tried it; and a rating of efficacy on a 10-point scale. Results: As predicted those most heard of were acupuncture, aromatherapy, herbal medicine, hypnosis, massage and yoga while those with lowest ratings were autogenic training, ayurveda, biochemic tissue salts, chelation cell therapy and ozone therapy. A number of multivariate statistical techniques were used to attempt to investigate the perceived dimensional structure of the different therapies. Slightly different structures emerged depending on the question asked and the analysis computed. Conclusion: The ‘bottom-up’ empirically derived taxonomization of therapies was interpretable and showed 10 different factors. The issue of classifying or taxonomizing complementary medicines is discussed.

References (6)

  • S. Fulder

    The handbook of complementary medicine

    (1989)
  • D. Watson

    A dictionary of mind and body

    (1995)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (31)

  • The global use of diverse medical systems

    2020, Social Science and Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    The description of these pluralistic medical markets captures the heterogeneity of health behaviors of both practitioners and their potential clientele (Cominsky and Scrimshaw 1980). That is, medical pluralism affords individuals the opportunity to “shop around” a range of options from the local medical marketplace (Furnham, 2000; Press, 1969, 1980). As such, seeing utilization in “neat binaries” is problematic (Smyth, 2005; Kelner et al., 2000).

  • What the public think about hypnosis and hypnotherapy: A narrative review of literature covering opinions and attitudes of the general public 1996–2016

    2017, Complementary Therapies in Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    However no review covers the public’s conception of hypnotherapy, despite nearly 80 years of research.19,20 The motivation behind previous public opinion research has varied, exploring how beliefs predict outcomes,21–23 how changing attitudes may affect outcomes,24,25 how a patient group perceive hypnotherapy26 and gathering data towards a general picture of CAM.27 Some research has tried to get a picture of the beliefs of the general public,28,29 but this is inevitably limited to a single population group or culture.

  • Healing Practices: Alternative and Complementary

    2015, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition
  • The 'Plaice' of Language

    2007, Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text