Understanding the role of scientific evidence in consumer evaluation of natural health products for osteoarthritis an application of the means end chain approach

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Murray Krahn²  Natasha Kachan²  Andreas Boecker¹  Heather Boon²  Teresa Tsui² 

[1] Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada;Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

关键词: Osteoarthritis;    Means ends chain analysis;    Decision-making;    Natural health products;   

Others  :  1231523
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6882-12-198

 received in 2012-05-15, accepted in 2012-10-12,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Over 30% of individuals use natural health products (NHPs) for osteoarthritis-related pain. The Deficit Model for the Public Understanding of Science suggests that if individuals are given more information (especially about scientific evidence) they will make better health-related decisions. In contrast, the Contextual Model argues that scientific evidence is one of many factors that explain how consumers make health-related decisions. The primary objective was to investigate how the level of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of NHPs impacts consumer decision-making in the self-selection of NHPs by individuals with osteoarthritis.

Methods

The means-end chain approach to product evaluation was used to compare laddering interviews with two groups of community-dwelling Canadian seniors who had used NHPs to treat their osteoarthritis. Group 1 (n=13) had used only NHPs (glucosamine and/or chondroitin) with “high” scientific evidence of efficacy. Group 2 (n=12) had used NHPs (methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) and/or bromelain) with little or no scientific evidence supporting efficacy. Content analysis and generation of hierarchical value maps facilitated the identification of similarities and differences between the two groups.

Results

The dominant decision-making chains for participants in the two scientific evidence categories were similar. Scientific evidence was an important decision-making factor but not as important as the advice from health care providers, friends and family. Most participants learned about scientific evidence via indirect sources from health care providers and the media.

Conclusions

The Contextual Model of the public understanding of science helps to explain why our participants believed scientific evidence is not the most important factor in their decision to use NHPs to help manage their osteoarthritis.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Tsui et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Natural Health Product Regulations. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/index_e.html webcite
• [2]Canada's Functional Food and Natural Health Products Industry AAFC Number 10393E. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada; 2007.
• [3]Ipsos-Reid: Baseline Natural Health Products Survey Among Consumers. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada; 2005.
• [4]Horneber M, Bueschel G, Dennert G, Less D, Ritter E, Zwahlen M: How Many Cancer Patients Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Integr Cancer Ther 2012, 11(3):187-203. Epub 2011 Oct 21
• [5]Dayhew M, Wilkinson JM, Simpson MD: Complementary and alternative medicine and the search for knowledge by conventional health care practitioners. Contemp Nurse 2009, 33(1):41-49.
• [6]Lawson B, Putnam W, Nicol K, Archibald G, Mackillop J, Conter H, Frail D: Managing osteoarthritis. Medication use among seniors in the community. Can Fam Physician 2004, 50:1664-1670.
• [7]Gregory PJ, Sperry M, Wilson AF: Dietary supplements for osteoarthritis. Am Fam Physician 2008, 77(2):177-184.
• [8]Shaver JL, Wilbur J, Lee H, Robinson FP, Wang E: Self-reported medication and herb/supplement use by women with and without fibromyalgia. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009, 18(5):709-716.
• [9]Wilk V, Palmer HD, Stosic RG, McLachlan AJ: Evidence and practice in the self-management of low back pain: findings from an Australian internet-based survey. Clin J Pain 2010, 26(6):533-540.
• [10]Wazaify M, Shields E, Hughes CM, McElnay JC: Societal perspectives on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. Fam Pract 2005, 22(2):170-176. Epub 2005 Feb 2014
• [11]Boon H, Kachan N, Boecker A: Use of Natural Health Products: How Does Being "Natural" Affect Choice? Med Decis Making 2012. Epub ahead of print
• [12]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.
• [13]Verhoef MJ, Mulkins A, Carlson LE, Hilsden RJ, Kania A: Assessing the role of evidence in patients' evaluation of complementary therapies: a quality study. Integr Cancer Ther 2007, 6(4):345-353.
• [14]Balneaves LG, Truant TL, Kelly M, Verhoef MJ, Davison BJ: Bridging the gap: decision-making processes of women with breast cancer using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Support Care Cancer 2007, 15(8):973-983.
• [15]Balneaves LG, Weeks L, Seely D: Patient decision-making about complementary and alternative medicine in cancer management: context and process. Curr Oncol 2008, 15(Suppl 2):s94-s100.
• [16]Irwin A, Wynne B: Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
• [17]Sturgis P, Allum N: Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 2004, 13(1):55-74.
• [18]Miller S: Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 2001, 10(1):115-120.
• [19]Gross AG: The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 1994, 3(1):3-23.
• [20]Lewenstein BV: When science meets the public. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1992.
• [21]Grunert KG, Grunert SC: Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. Intern J of Research in Marketing 1995, 12:209-225.
• [22]Reynolds TJ, Olson JC: Understanding Consumer Decision Making. The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2001.
• [23]Gutman J: A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J Mark 1982, 46:60-72.
• [24]MECanalyst: Cognitive consumer mapping software, user guide. In.; rev. 0.4_en.
• [25]Reynolds TJ, Gutman J: Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. J Advertising Res 1988, 28:11-31.
• [26]Natural Standard Database: Evidence-based validated grading rationale. Somerville, MA, USA; www.naturalstandard.com webcite
• [27]Ezzy D, Liamputtong P: Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd edition. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [28]Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB: Evidence-based Medicine, How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd edition. London, U.K.: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
• [29]Astin JA, Reilly C, Perkins C, Child WL: Breast cancer patients' perspectives on and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a study by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. J Soc Integr Oncol 2006, 4(4):157-169.
• [30]Boon H, Brown JB, Gavin A, Westlake K: Men with prostate cancer: making decisions about complementary/alternative medicine. Med Decis Making 2003, 23(6):471-479.
• [31]Evans M, Shaw A, Thompson EA, Falk S, Turton P, Thompson T, Sharp D: Decisions to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by male cancer patients: information-seeking roles and types of evidence used. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007, 7:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Boon H, Brown JB, Gavin A, Kennard MA, Stewart M: Breast cancer survivors' perceptions of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM): making the decision to use or not to use. Qual Health Res 1999, 9(5):639-653.
• [33]Eng J, Ramsum D, Verhoef M, Guns E, Davison J, Gallagher R: A population-based survey of complementary and alternative medicine use in men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Integr Cancer Ther 2003, 2(3):212-216.
• [34]Rozin P: The meaning of "natural": process more important than content. Psychol Sci 2005, 16(8):652-658.
• [35]Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D, Swerdlin A, Wood K: Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 2004, 43(2):147-154.
• [36]Chema SK, Marks LA, Parcell JL, Bredahl M: Marketing Biotech Soybeans with Functional Health Attributes. Can J Agric Econ 2006, 54:685-703.
• [37]Vannoppen J, Verbeke W, Huylenbroeck GV, Viaene J: Consumer Valuation of Short Market Channels for Fresh Food Through Laddering. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 2001, 12(1):41-69.
• [38]Grindrod KA, Marra CA, Colley L, Cibere J, Tsuyuki RT, Esdaile JM, Gastonguay L, Kopec J: After patients are diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis, what do they do? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010, 62(4):510-515.