Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2008

Open Access 01-12-2008 | Research

Patient satisfaction with primary care: an observational study comparing anthroposophic and conventional care

Authors: Barbara M Esch, Florica Marian, André Busato, Peter Heusser

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study is part of a cross-sectional evaluation of complementary medicine providers in primary care in Switzerland. It compares patient satisfaction with anthroposophic medicine (AM) and conventional medicine (CON).

Methods

We collected baseline data on structural characteristics of the physicians and their practices and health status and demographics of the patients. Four weeks later patients assessed their satisfaction with the received treatment (five items, four point rating scale) and evaluated the praxis care (validated 23-item questionnaire, five point rating scale). 1946 adult patients of 71 CON and 32 AM primary care physicians participated.

Results

1. Baseline characteristics: AM patients were more likely female (75.6% vs. 59.0%, p < 0.001) and had higher education (38.6% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.001). They suffered more often from chronic illnesses (52.8% vs. 46.2%, p = 0.015) and cancer (7.4% vs. 1.1%). AM consultations lasted on average 23,3 minutes (CON: 16,8 minutes, p < 0.001).
2. Satisfaction: More AM patients expressed a general treatment satisfaction (56.1% vs. 43.4%, p < 0.001) and saw their expectations completely fulfilled at follow-up (38.7% vs. 32.6%, p < 0.001). AM patients reported significantly fewer adverse side effects (9.3% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.003), and more other positive effects from treatment (31.7% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001).
Europep: AM patients appreciated that their physicians listened to them (80.0% vs. 67.1%, p < 0.001), spent more time (76.5% vs. 61.7%, p < 0.001), had more interest in their personal situation (74.6% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.001), involved them more in decisions about their medical care (67.8% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.022), and made it easy to tell the physician about their problems (71.6% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.023). AM patients gave significantly better rating as to information and support (in 3 of 4 items p [less than or equal to] 0.044) and for thoroughness (70.4% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

AM patients were significantly more satisfied and rated their physicians as valuable partners in the treatment. This suggests that subject to certain limitations, AM therapy may be beneficial in primary care. To confirm this, more detailed qualitative studies would be necessary.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Donabedian A: The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988, 260(12):1743–1748. 10.1001/jama.260.12.1743CrossRefPubMed
2.
Campbell SM, Roland MO, Buetow SA: Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med 2000, 51(11):1611–1625. 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00057-5CrossRefPubMed
3.
Grol R, Wensing M: Patients evaluate general/family practice. The EUROPEP instrument. EQuiP, WONCA Region Europe 2000.
4.
5.
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC: Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990 – 1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998, 280(18):1569–1575. 10.1001/jama.280.18.1569CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Wolf U, Maxion-Bergemann S, Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF, Wolf M: Use of Complementary Medicine in Switzerland. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(2):4–6. 10.1159/000093488CrossRef
8.
9.
Steiner R, Wegman I: Extending practical medicine. Fundamental principles based on the science of the spirit. Bristol: Rudolf Steiner Press; 2000.
10.
Heusser P, Ed: Akademische Forschung in der Anthroposophischen Medizin. Beispiel Hygiogenese: Natur- und geisteswissenschaftliche Zugänge zur Selbstheilungskraft des Menschen. Bern: Peter Lang; 1999:375.
11.
Heusser P: Physiologische Grundlagen der Gesundheitsförderung und das anthroposophisch-medizinische Konzept. In Gesundheitsförderung- eine neue Zeitforderung Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Beitrag der Komplementärmedizin. Volume 6. Edited by: Heusser P. Bern: Peter Lang; 2002:101–129. [Ausfeld-Hafter B, Beck A, Heusser P, Thuneysen A (Series Editors): Komplementäre Medizin im interdisziplinären Diskurs].
12.
Ritchie J, Wilkinson J, Gantley M, Feder G, Carter Y, Formby J: A model of integrated primary care: Anthroposophic medicine. London: National Centre for Social Research. Department of General Practice and Primary Care, St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London; 2001.
13.
Pieringer W, Meran JG, Stix P, Fazekas C: [Psychosomatic medicine – historical models and current theories]. [Article in German] Wien Med Wschr 2002, 152(19–20):488–494. 10.1046/j.1563-258X.2002.02090.xPubMed
14.
Cartwright T, Torr R: Making sense of illness: the experiences of users of complementary medicine. J Health Psychol 2005, 10(4):559–572. 10.1177/1359105305053425CrossRefPubMed
15.
Büssing A, Ostermann T, Matthiessen PF: Role of religion and spirituality in medical patients: confirmatory results with the SpREUK questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005, 3: 10. 10.1186/1477-7525-3-10PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
16.
Carlsson M, Arman M, Backman M, Hamrin E: Perceived quality of life and coping for Swedish women with breast cancer who choose complementary medicine. Cancer Nurs 2001, 24(5):395–401. 10.1097/00002820-200110000-00012CrossRefPubMed
17.
Heusser P, Berger Braun S, Bertschy M, Burkhard R, Ziegler R, Helwig S, van Wegberg B, Cerny T: Palliative in-patient cancer treatment in an anthroposophic hospital: II. Quality of life during and after stationary treatment, and subjective treatment benefits. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(3):156–166. 10.1159/000092448CrossRef
18.
Glöckler M: Praktische Konsequenzen der Salutogeneseforschung. In Wie entsteht Gesundheit. Edited by Verein für antroposophisch erweitertes Heilwesen; Heft 209. Arlesheim: Antrosana; 2004:21–31.
19.
Marian F: Exploring different dimensions of holism: considerations in the context of an evaluation of complementary medicine in primary care. Forsch Komplement Med 2007, 14(2):19–27. 10.1159/000112455CrossRef
20.
Kienle GS, Kiene H, Albonico H: Anthroposophische Medizin in der klinischen Forschung. Wirksamkeit, Nutzen, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Sicherheit. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2006.
21.
Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H: Anthroposophic medical therapy in chronic disease: a four-year prospective cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007, 7: 10. 10.1186/1472-6882-7-10PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Flöistrup H, Swartz J, Bergström A, Alm JS, Scheynius A, van Hage M, Waser M, Braun-Fahrländer C, Schram-Bijkerk D, Huber M, Zutavern A, von Mutius E, Üblagger E, Riedler J, Michaels KB, Pershagen G, PARSIFAL Study Group: Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school children. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006, 117(1):59–66. 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.09.039CrossRefPubMed
23.
Heusser P, Berger Braun S, Ziegler R, Bertschy M, Helwig S, van Wegberg B, Cerny T: Palliative in-patient cancer treatment in an anthroposophic hospital: I. Treatment patterns and compliance with anthroposophic medicine. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(2):94–100. 10.1159/000091694CrossRef
24.
Hamre HJ, Fischer M, Heger M, Riley D, Haidvogl M, Baars E, Bristol E, Evans M, Schwarz R, Kiene H: Anthroposophic vs. conventional therapy of acute respiratory and ear infections: a prospective outcomes study. Wien Klin Wschr 2005, 117(7–8):256–268. 10.1007/s00508-005-0344-9CrossRefPubMed
25.
Simon L, Schietzel T, Gärtner C, Kümmell HC, Schulte M: Ein anthroposophisches Therapiekonzept für entzündlich-rheumatische Erkrankungen – Ergebnisse einer zweijährigen Pilotstudie. Forsch Komplementarmed 1997, 4: 17–27.CrossRef
26.
Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD: Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract 2002, 15(1):25–38.PubMed
27.
Saba GW, Wong ST, Schillinger D, Fernandez A, Somkin CP, Wilson CC, Grumbach K: Shared decision making and the experience of partnership in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2006, 4(1):54–62. 10.1370/afm.393PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Balint M: The doctor, his patient and the illness. New York: International University Press Inc; 1957.
29.
30.
31.
Sheu CF: Fitting mixed-effects models for repeated ordinal outcomes with the NLMIXED procedure. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2002, 34(2):151–157.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali W: New ICD-10 version of the Charlson Comorbidity Index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57(12):1288–1294. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012CrossRefPubMed
33.
Astin JA: Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 1998, 279(19):1548–1553. 10.1001/jama.279.19.1548CrossRefPubMed
34.
Marian F, Widmer M, Herren S, Dönges A, Busato A: Physicians' philosophy of care: a comparison of complementary and conventional medicine. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(2):70–77. 10.1159/000090735CrossRef
35.
Unkelbach R, Abholz HH: Unterschiede zwischen Patenten schulmedizinischer und anthroposophischer Hausärzte. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(6):349–355. 10.1159/000096224CrossRef
36.
Widmer M, Herren S, Dönges A, Marian F, Busato A: Complementary and conventional medicine in Switzerland: comparing characteristics of general practitioners. Forsch Komplement Med 2006, 13(4):234–240. 10.1159/000094448CrossRef
37.
Pampallona S, von Rohr E, van Wegberg B, Bernhard J, Helwig S, Heusser P, Huerny C, Schaad R, Cerny T: Socio-demographic and medical characteristics of advanced cancer patients using conventional or complementary medicine. Onkologie 2002, 25(2):165–170. 10.1159/000055227CrossRefPubMed
38.
Fisher P, van Haselen R, Hardy K, Berkovitz S, McCarney R: Effectiveness gaps: a new concept for evaluating health service and research needs applied to complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2004, 10(4):627–632.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Hamre HJ, Witt CM, Glockmann A, Ziegler R, Willich SN, Kiene H: Health costs in anthroposophic therapy users: a two-year prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6: 65. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-65PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
40.
Busato A, Eichenberger R, Künzi B: Extent and structure of health insurance expenditures for complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss primary care. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6(1):132–141. 10.1186/1472-6963-6-132PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.
Nagel G: [The expert patient: medical consequences]. [Article in German] Thieme connect. Zentralbl Gynakol 2006, 128: 327–329. 10.1055/s-2006-942285CrossRef
42.
Muthny FA, Bertsch C: Why some cancer patients use unorthodox treatment and why others do not. Onkologie 1997, 20(4):320–325.CrossRef
43.
Hildebrandt G: Therapeutische Physiologie. In Handbuch der Balneologie und medizinischen Klimatologie. Edited by: Gutenbrunner C, Hildebrandt G. Berlin: Springer; 1998:5–84.CrossRef
44.
Wapf V, Busato A: Patients motives for choosing a physician: comparison between conventional and complementary medicine in Swiss primary care. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007, 7(1):38.CrossRef
45.
Busato A, Dönges A, Herren S, Widmer M, Marian F: Health status and health care utilisation of patients in complementary and conventional primary care in Switzerland-an observational study. Fam Pract 2006, 23(1):116–124. 10.1093/fampra/cmi078CrossRefPubMed
46.
Thompson TDB, Weiss M: Homeopathy – what are the active ingredients? An exploratory study using the UK Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Complement Altern Med 2006, 6: 37. 10.1186/1472-6882-6-37PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
47.
Thom DH, Kravitz RL, Bell RA, Krupat E, Azari R: Patient trust in the physician: relationship to patient requests. Fam Pract 2002, 19(5):476–483. 10.1093/fampra/19.5.476CrossRefPubMed
48.
Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ: Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract 2002, 52: 9–12.
49.
Thorne SE, Harris SR, Mahoney K, Con A, McGuinness L: The context of health care communication in chronic illness. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 54(3):299–306. 10.1016/j.pec.2003.11.009CrossRefPubMed
50.
Yawn B, Goodwin MA, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC: Time use during acute and chronic illness visits to a family physician. Fam Pract 2003, 20(4):474–477. 10.1093/fampra/cmg425CrossRefPubMed
51.
Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE Jr: Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1985, 102(4):520–528.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Attkisson CC, Zwick R: The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann 1982, 5(3):233–237. 10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-XCrossRefPubMed
53.
Goldstein MS, Glik D: Use of and satisfaction with homeopathy in a patient population. Altern Ther Health Med 1998, 4(2):60–65.PubMed
54.
Hannöver W, Dogs CP, Kordy H: Patientenzufriedenheit – ein Maß für Behandlungserfolg? Psychotherapeut 2000, 45(5):292–300. 10.1007/s002780000094CrossRef
55.
Michlig M, Ausfeld-Hafter B, Busato A: Patient satisfaction with primary care: a comparasion between conventional care and traditional Chinese medicine. Complement Ther Med 2008. 10.1016/j.ctim.2007.12.001
56.
Hall JA, Roter DL, Milbrun MA, Daltroy LH: Why are sicker patients less satisfied with their medical care? Tests of two explanatory models. Health Psychol 1998, 17(1):70–75. 10.1037/0278-6133.17.1.70CrossRefPubMed
57.
Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ: The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med 1999, 48(8):977–988. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0CrossRefPubMed
58.
Caspi O, Koithan M, Criddle MW: Alternative medicine or "alternative" patients: a qualitative study of patient-oriented decision-making processes with respect to complementary and alternative medicine. Med Decis Making 2004, 24(1):64–79. 10.1177/0272989X03261567CrossRefPubMed
59.
Miilunpalo S, Vuori I, Oja P, Pasanen M, Urponen H: Self-rated health status as a health measure: the predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(5):517–528. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00045-0CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patient satisfaction with primary care: an observational study comparing anthroposophic and conventional care
Authors
Barbara M Esch
Florica Marian
André Busato
Peter Heusser
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2008
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-74

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2008 Go to the issue

Research

Validation of a French language version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS)

Research

Validity and internal consistency of a Hausa version of the Ibadan knee/hip osteoarthritis outcome measure

Research

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire 11–14 (CPQ11–14) for the Brazilian Portuguese language

Research

Validation of two complementary oral-health related quality of life indicators (OIDP and OSS 0-10 ) in two qualitatively distinct samples of the Spanish population

Research

Child-OIDP index in Brazil: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation

Research

Is global quality of life reduced before fracture in patients with low-energy wrist or hip fracture? A comparison with matched controls