If so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) ever were to enter the Guinness Book of Records, it would most certainly be because it generates more surveys than any other area of medical inquiry. I have long been rather sceptical about this survey-mania. Therefore, I greet any major new survey with some trepidation.
The aim of this new survey was to obtain up-to-date general population figures for practitioner-led SCAM use in England, and to discover people’s views and experiences regarding access. The researchers commissioned a face-to-face questionnaire survey of a nationally representative adult quota sample (aged ≥15 years). Ten questions were included within Ipsos MORI’s weekly population-based survey. The questions explored 12-month practitioner-led SCAM use, reasons for non-use, views on NHS-provided SCAM, and willingness to pay.
Of 4862 adults surveyed, 766 (16%) had seen a SCAM practitioner. People most commonly visited SCAM practitioners for manual therapies (massage, osteopathy, chiropractic) and acupuncture, as well as yoga, pilates, reflexology, and mindfulness or meditation. Women, people with higher socioeconomic status (SES) and those in south England were more likely to access SCAM. Musculoskeletal conditions (mainly back pain) accounted for 68% of use, and mental health 12%. Most was through self-referral (70%) and self-financing. GPs (17%) or NHS professionals (4%) referred and/or recommended SCAM to users. These SCAM users were more often unemployed, with lower income and social grade, and receiving NHS-funded SCAM. Responders were willing to pay varying amounts for SCAM; 22% would not pay anything. Almost two in five responders felt NHS funding and GP referral and/or endorsement would increase their SCAM use.
The authors concluded that SCAM is commonly used in England, particularly for musculoskeletal and mental health problems, and by affluent groups paying privately. However, less well-off people are also being GP-referred for NHS-funded treatments. For SCAM with evidence of effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness), those of lower SES may be unable to access potentially useful interventions, and access via GPs may be able to address this inequality. Researchers, patients, and commissioners should collaborate to research the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCAM, and consider its availability on the NHS.
I feel that a few critical thoughts are in order:
- The authors call their survey an ‘up-date’. The survey ran between 25 September and 18 October 2015. That is more than three years ago. I would not exactly call this an up-date!
- Authors (several of whom are known SCAM-enthusiasts) also state that practitioner-led SCAM use was about 5% higher than previous national (UK and England) surveys. This may relate to the authors’ wider SCAM definition, which included 11 more therapies than Hunt et al (a survey from my team), or increased SCAM use since 2005. Despite this uncertainty, the authors write this: Figures from 2005 reported that 12% of the English population used practitioner-led CAM. This 2015 survey has found that 16% of the general population had used practitioner-led CAM in the previous 12 months. Thus, they imply that SCAM-use has been increasing.
- The main justification for running yet another survey presumably was to determine whether SCAM-use has increased, decreased or remained the same (virtually everything else found in the new survey had been shown many times before). To not answer this main question conclusively by asking the same questions as a previous survey is just daft, in my view. We have used the same survey methods at two points one decade apart and found little evidence for an increase, on the contrary: overall, GPs were less likely to endorse CAMs than previously shown (38% versus 19%).
- The main reason why I have long been critical about such surveys is the manner in which their data get interpreted. The present paper is no exception in this respect. Invariably the data show that SCAM is used by those who can afford it. This points to INEQUALITY that needs to be addressed by allowing much more SCAM on the public purse. In other words, such surveys are little more that very expensive and somewhat under-hand promotion of quackery.
- Yes, I know, the present authors are more clever than that; they want the funds limited to SCAM with evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. So, why do they not list those SCAMs together with the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness? This would enable us to check the validity of the claim that more public money should fund SCAM. I think I know why: such SCAMs do not exist or, at lest, they are extremely rare.
But otherwise the new survey was excellent.
14 Responses to New survey of SCAM-use in England: an expensive promotion of quackery?
Leave a Reply to Björn Geir Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The paper ststes:
“Conclusion: CAM use in England is common for musculoskeletal and mental health problems, but varies by sex, geography, and SES. It is mainly self-referred and self-financed; some is GP-endorsed and/or referred, especially for individuals of lower SES.”
Based on the data identified, that seems plausible enough.
But then the authors go on to draw another conclusion: “Researchers, patients, and commissioners should collaborate to research the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAM and consider its availability on the NHS.”
Quite how they come to that conclusion is not explained. Ther is simply no connection whatsoever, as far as this survey is concerned, that there needs to be any further research whatsoever concerning “effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAM.”
CAM, by definition, can demonstrate no effectiveness let alone cost-effectiveness, or it would be ‘medicine’.
And there needs to be no consideration whatsoever of the premise that any NHS funds should be spent on CAM.
That is a false conclusion – and the editors of the British Journal of General Practice (a publication of the RCGP no less), should explain to their readers what their motives were in publishing such tosh.
There is a very ‘unhealthy’ obsession with the word SCAM on this forum – it’s a silly, non-medical, non-scientific and juvenile soundbite. It seems that some modern ‘Doctors’ (they learn little about nutrition at medical school which is unforgivable in my view) may have forgotten the wise words of Hippocrates: “First, Do No Harm”. The intolerance demonstrated by some comments on this page is quite shocking… I hope I never find myself being treated by any of you!
I use SCAM as an abbreviation and have explained this in the very first sentence of my post. why should this be unhealthy?
SCAM is the title of my last book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/SCAM-So-Called-Alternative-Medicine-Societas/dp/1845409701/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=449PJJDXNTY60Y418S5J) – perhaps you should read it.
as to FIRST DO NO HARM, please read this post: https://edzardernst.com/2018/06/first-do-no-harm-what-does-it-mean-how-does-it-apply-to-alternative-medicine/
as to your last sentence: I am confident that this can be arranged.
Hi Helen
Would you like to say whether or not you have previously commented here using a different name?
Thanks.
Admin
Edzard, I used the word ‘unhealthy’ in a sarcastic sense – not literally, didn’t you get that? Perhaps you like using this word to get noticed on the search engines. I’m not going to feed your ego by clicking on your book link, very last Century attempt at attracting followers maybe. Everyone seems to publish a book these days, boring!
oh dear!
Prof Ernst – I had to use precious time looking up ‘the’ thread to determine who the ‘oh dear’ was addressed to in Recent Comments.
I am often confused under Recent Connents as to who is being replied to. Maybe it’s just me; but I recall, although there were often unkind comments, a certain skeptic poster always stating who he was responding to. It saved a lot of time.
And naybe a list of rules for posting on your blog is due: a request to be informed if Helen has posted under a different name. Various requests for qualifications of CAM supporter posters. I have been admonished for including a quote in a previous post. But it’s apparent skeptics can promote their books. It seems bad grammar/prose by CAM supporters is rebuked by skeptics but allowed in skeptics’ posts or,at least not criticised. All very confusing for an occasional contributor like me.
Very light on the ground are CAM supporters’ posts. I believe you would like to increase your following : naybe clear rules will help.
Angela said:
The Recent Comments page is a quick way to see what has been replied to recently: you need to look at the post itself to see the full context.
There is.
Are you asking a question?
Angela said:
Why should there be any?
My book, Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine , uses ‘camistry’ , practised by camists on camees.
What term would Helen prefer to describe modalities of treatment conducted by quacks seeking to take advantage of vulnerable and gullible patients and using treatments which have no effect on any pathological process (unless emotional turmoil is included)?
The professor’s use of ‘SCAM’ refers to what is in the tin and helps those vulnerable patients critically think through just how they do want, and need, to be treated.
What term would one use to describe modalities of treatment conducted by MDs which have no effect on any pathological process?
DC:
Terms are many and include Anachronistic; outdated; misplaced; valueless – get out the thesaurus.
(I take you refer to modalities for which there is no evidence of benefit such as homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic – which are used by some MDs.)
And the point you want to make is…?
(And please note, this thread is about SCAM, not ‘medicine’ practiced by MDs. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.)
“Toy medicine” or “make believe medicine” are useful and fortright terms for such practices.
No, i am referring to a modality (your word) that was utilized in medicine only to later find out that it has no effect on pathology. Do they just call it “oops”?