How does the role of complementary and alternative medicine in general practice differ between countries? Interviews with doctors who have worked both in Germany and elsewhere in Europe

• Published in: BMC complementary and alternative medicine 2024-09, Vol.24 (1), p.328-12, Article 328
• Main Authors: Linde, Klaus, Bayer, Robert, Gehrmann, Jan, Jansky, Bianca
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Alternative medicine; Analysis; Attitude of Health Personnel; Communication skills; Complementary and alternative medicine; Complementary Therapies - statistics & numerical data; Country comparison; Europe; Evidence-based medicine; Family medicine; Female; General Practice; General Practitioners; Germany; Health care policy; Health insurance; Humans; International cooperation; Interviews; Interviews as Topic; Italy; Male; Medical personnel; Medical profession; Medicine; Middle Aged; Patients; Physicians; Physicians (General practice); Practice; Primary care; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative Research; Qualitative study
• ISSN: 2662-7671; 2662-7671; 1472-6882
• DOI: 10.1186/s12906-024-04624-w

Available data suggest that general practitioners (GPs) in Germany use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities more frequently than GPs in many other countries. We investigated the country differences perceived by general practitioners who have worked in Germany and in one of four other European countries with regard to the role of complementary and alternative treatments in primary care. In this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 GPs who had worked both in Germany and Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or the United Kingdom (UK; n = 3 for each of the four countries). Participants were asked how they perceived and experienced country differences regarding health system, relevance of CAM modalities, the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and science, and how they handle so-called indeterminate situations. For the analysis, we followed a thematic analysis approach according to Braun and Clarke with focus on themes that cover CAM. Participants unanimously reported that they perceived CAM to be more relevant in general practice in Germany compared to the other countries. We identified four overarching themes in relation to the perceived reasons for these differences. Firstly, physicians with experiences in countries with a strong EBM and science orientation (Netherlands, Norway and the UK) considered the deeply ingrained view in national healthcare systems and GP communities that CAM modalities are not evidence-based as the main reason for the lower use of CAM by GPs. Secondly, extensive training of communication skills was cited as a reason that reduced the need for CAM in the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. Thirdly, differences in patient expectations and demands were perceived as a factor contributing to greater utilisation of CAM by German GPs compared to the other countries. Finally, country-specific reimbursement mechanisms were considered as a factor influencing the role of CAM in general practice. The study results point to major differences between countries with regard to the role of CAM in GP care. Differences in basic attitudes in the discipline of general practice, patient expectations and system conditions appear to play an important role here.