[The use of complementary and alternative medicine in children at a general paediatric clinic and parental reasons for use]. / Het gebruik van complementaire en alternatieve geneeswijzen door kinderen op een polikliniek voor kindergeneeskunde en de redenen van ouders daarvoor.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of and reasons for the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in paediatric patients, and to determine the parental need for appropriate information from their paediatrician. DESIGN: Questionnaire. METHOD: A questionnaire was given to the parents of general paediatric patients of the St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein and the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands, in the period June 2003-March 2004. Parents were asked about CAM use in the past 12 months, which CAM modalities were used and their reasons for using it. They were also asked about their need to receive information on CAM from their paediatrician. RESULTS: A total of 581 of 617 parents completed the questionnaire (94%). CAM was used by 177 (30%) patients. The most frequently used types of CAM were homeopathy (48%), phytotherapy (45%), nutritional supplements (28%) and manual therapies (28%). CAM was used most often in children with headache or chronic fatigue. The most frequently cited reasons for CAM use were a desire for the child to feel better and a preference for a 'more natural' therapy. Factors associated with CAM use were a high level of parental education and use of CAM by the parent. Only 40% of parents had reported the use of CAM to their paediatrician, usually on their own initiative. The majority of the parents (60%) found it important to very important that the paediatrician is able to provide information on CAM. CONCLUSION: Almost one-third of patients visiting a general paediatrician had used complementary or alternative medicine in the past year. Given the possible interactions with conventional therapies and the desire of parents to receive more information on CAM, paediatricians should expand the patient history assessment to include questions regarding the use of CAM.

Manual therapy in osteoarthritis of the hip: outcome in subgroups of patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether manual therapy has particular benefit in subgroups of patients defined on the basis of hip function, range of joint motion, pain and radiological deterioration. METHODS: The study was performed in the out-patient clinic of physical therapy of a large hospital. Data on 109 patients with OA of the hip (clinical ACR criteria) participating in a randomized clinical trial on the effects of manual therapy were used. The outcomes for hip function (Harris hip score), range of joint motion (ROM) and pain (VAS) were compared for specific subgroups. Subgroups were assigned by the median split method. The interaction effect between subgroup and treatment was tested using multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the effect of manual therapy in specific subgroups of patients defined on the basis of baseline levels of hip function, pain and ROM. On the basis of radiological grading of osteoarthritis (OA), we found that patients with severe radiological grading of OA had significantly worse outcome on ROM as a result of manual therapy than patients with mild or moderate radiological grading of OA. CONCLUSION: A significant interaction effect was found for only 1 out of 12 hypotheses investigated. Therefore, we conclude that there is no evidence for the particular benefit of manual therapy in subgroups of patients.

Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip.

OBJECTIVE: To compare responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures (that is, the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and a test of walking speed and pain during walking) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. METHOD: The first 75 cases within the population of a randomised clinical trial on manual therapy and exercise therapy were selected for secondary analysis. Experienced (self reported) recovery by the patients after treatment (five weeks) was used as an external criterion for clinically relevant improvement. Responsiveness was evaluated by comparing responsiveness ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: The responsiveness ratio for the Harris Hip Score was high (1.70) compared with walking speed (0.45), pain during walking (0.66), and the subscales of the SF-36-"bodily pain" (0.42) and "physical functioning" (0.36). The area under the curve also was highest for the Harris Hip Score (0.92) compared with walking speed (0.71), pain during walking (0.73), and the SF-36 subscales-bodily pain and physical functioning (both 0.66). CONCLUSION: The Harris Hip Score is more responsive than the test of walking speed, pain, and subscales for function of the SF-36 in patients with OA of the hip. The Harris Hip Score seems to be a suitable instrument to evaluate change in hip function in patients with OA of the hip.