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

Research Article

Andreas Boecker¹  Murray Krahn²  Natasha Kachan²  Teresa Tsui²  Heather Boon² 

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

DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6882-12-198

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

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundOver 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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】

Unknown   
© Tsui et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.