Cited by 100Complementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Utilisation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners within maternity care provision: results from a nationally representative cohort study of 1,835 pregnant women

Open access
Steel, Amie, Adams, Jon, Sibbritt, David, Broom, Alex, Gallois, Cindy, Frawley, Jane·2012·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little known about women's concurrent use of conventional and complementary health care during pregnancy, particularly consultation patterns with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study examines health service utilisation among pregnant women including consultations with obstetricians, midwives, general practitioners (GPs) and CAM practitioners. METHODS: A sub-study of pregnant women (n=2445) was undertaken from the nationally-representative Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Women's consultations with conventional practitioners (obstetricians, GPs and midwives) and CAM practitioners for pregnancy-related health conditions were analysed. The analysis included Pearson chi-square tests to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1835 women (response rate = 79.2%). A substantial number (49.4%) of respondents consulted with a CAM practitioner for pregnancy-related health conditions. Many participants consulted only with a CAM practitioner for assistance with certain conditions such as neck pain (74.6%) and sciatica (40.4%). Meanwhile, women consulted both CAM practitioners and conventional maternity health professionals (obstetricians, midwives and GPs) for back pain (61.8%) and gestational diabetes (22.2%). Women visiting a general practitioner (GP) 3-4 times for pregnancy care were more likely to consult with acupuncturists compared with those consulting a GP less often (p=<0.001, x2=20.5). Women who had more frequent visits to a midwife were more likely to have consulted with an acupuncturist (p=<0.001, x2=18.9) or a doula (p=<0.001, x2=23.2) than those visiting midwives less frequently for their pregnancy care. CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasise the necessity for a considered and collaborative approach to interactions between pregnant women, conventional maternity health providers and CAM practitioners to accommodate appropriate information transferral and co-ordinated maternity care. The absence of sufficient clinical evidence regarding many commonly used CAM practices during pregnancy also requires urgent attention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2393-12-146

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steel, A., Adams, J., Sibbritt, D., Broom, A., Gallois, C., & Frawley, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Steel, Amie
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2012-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
146-146
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997367131
Cited by
98
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
23.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP1094765)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Traditional Chinese Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
complementary and alternative medicine, pregnancy, obstetric care, health care utilization, CAM practitioners, obstetricians, midwives, general practitioners, acupuncture, doulas, gestational diabetes mellitus, back pain, neck pain, sciatica, Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health
MeSH terms
Adult, Complementary Therapies, Australia, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Maternal Health Services, Midwifery, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Referral and Consultation, Cohort Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Acupuncture, General Practitioners, Doulas, Musculoskeletal Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review