Volume 25, Issue 7 pp. 493-506

Prevalence, pattern and predictors of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in migraine patients attending a headache clinic in Italy

P Rossi

Corresponding Author

P Rossi

Headache Clinic, INI Grottaferrata,

University Centre for Adaptative Disorders and Headache, IRCCS C. Mondino Institute of Neurology and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Paolo Rossi MD, PhD, Via Suvereto 250, 00139, Rome, Italy. Tel. and fax + 39 06 8864 0808, e-mail [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
G Di Lorenzo

G Di Lorenzo

Psychiatry Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata and

Search for more papers by this author
MG Malpezzi

MG Malpezzi

Psychiatry Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata and

Search for more papers by this author
J Faroni

J Faroni

Headache Clinic, INI Grottaferrata,

Search for more papers by this author
F Cesarino

F Cesarino

Headache Clinic, INI Grottaferrata,

Search for more papers by this author
C Di Lorenzo

C Di Lorenzo

Headache Clinic, INI Grottaferrata,

Department of Clinical Neurology and Otorhinolaryngology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza, Rome, and

Search for more papers by this author
G Nappi

G Nappi

Department of Clinical Neurology and Otorhinolaryngology, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza, Rome, and

University Centre for Adaptative Disorders and Headache, IRCCS C. Mondino Institute of Neurology and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 14 June 2005
Citations: 15

Abstract

inline image

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in migraine is a growing phenomenon about which little is known. This study was undertaken to evaluate the rates, pattern and presence of predictors of CAM use in a clinical population of patients with different migraine subtypes. Four hundred and eighty-one migraineurs attending a headache clinic were asked to undergo a physician-administered structured interview designed to gather information on CAM use. Past use of CAM therapies was reported by 31.4% of the patients surveyed, with 17.1% having used CAM in the previous year. CAM therapies were perceived as beneficial by 39.5% of the patients who had used them. A significantly higher proportion of transformed migraine patients reported CAM treatments as ineffective compared with patients suffering from episodic migraine (73.1% vs. 50.7%, P < 0.001). The most common source of a recommendation of CAM was a friend or relative (52.7%). In most cases, migraineurs’ recourse to CAM treatments was specifically for their headache (89.3%). Approximately 61% of CAM users had not informed their medical doctors of their CAM use. The most common reason for deciding to try a CAM therapy was that it offered a ‘potential improvement of headache’ (47.7%). The greatest users of CAM treatments were: patients with a diagnosis of transformed migraine; those who had consulted a high number of specialists and reported a higher lifetime number of conventional medical visits; those with a comorbid psychiatric disorder; those with a high income; and those whose headache had been either misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all. Our findings suggest that headache clinic migraine patients, in their need of and quest for care, seek and explore both conventional and CAM approaches. Physicians should be made aware of this patient-driven change in the medical climate in order to prevent misuse of healthcare resources and to be better equipped to meet patients’ needs.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.