Larussa T¹, Rossi M², Suraci E³, Marasco R⁴, Imeneo M⁵, Abenavoli L⁶, Luzza F⁷. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 Feb 13;55(2). pii: E46. doi: 10.3390/medicina55020046.

Author information

1 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. tiziana.larussa@gmail.com.

2 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. marianna.rossi903@virgilio.it.

3 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. e.suraci@libero.it.

4 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. raffaellamarasco1@gmail.com.

5 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. graziaimeneo@hotmail.it.

6 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. l.abenavoli@unicz.it.

7 Department of Health Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna Graecia", Viale Europa, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy. luzza@unicz.it.

Abstract

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) as assessed by the Rome IV criteria. Methods: Consecutive patients referring for IBS were re-evaluated according to the Rome IV criteria. Demographic features and characteristics potentially associated with the use of CAM were collected. A validated, self-administered, survey questionnaire dealing with CAM and patients' level of knowledge, motivation, perception, and information seeking-behavior toward the use of CAM was analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed in order to identify predictors of CAM use among participants. Results: Among 156 patients claiming IBS, 137 (88%) met the Rome IV criteria, and 62 of them (45%) were CAM users. Biologically based therapy was the most chosen CAM (78%). Significant risk factors (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) for the use of CAM were female gender (7.22, 2.31?22.51), a higher BMI (1.16, 1.02?1.33), and a good knowledge of CAM (4.46, 1.73?11.45), while having children was a protective factor (0.25, 0.07?0.95). Only 19% of patients used CAM due to medical advice and over half (51%) thought it was a "more natural" approach. Although a minority of patients (16%) had full satisfaction from CAM, 81% of users would repeat the CAM experience for their IBS symptoms. Conclusions: The widespread use of CAM in IBS, the patients' belief in its safety, and their willingness to re-use it suggest that knowledge of health-care providers and patient education should be improved.