Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2020; 80(10): e169-e170
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718073
Poster
Mittwoch, 7.10.2020
Konservative Gynäkologie/Übergreifende Themen I

Gynecologists´ attitude towards their use of complementary and integrative medicine approaches: results of a nationwide AGO IMed survey

D. Grimm
1   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, University of Luebeck, Lübeck, Deutschland
,
D. Paepke
2   Department of Gynecology, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, München, Deutschland
,
P. Voiss
3   Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Deutschland
,
H. Cramer
3   Department of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Deutschland
,
S. Kuemmel
4   Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuernberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Deutschland
,
M. Beckmann
4   Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuernberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Deutschland
,
M. Kalder
5   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland
,
L. Wölber
6   Department of Gynaecology and Gynaecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland
,
M. Kiechle
7   Department of Gynaecology, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, München, Deutschland
,
B. Schmalfeldt
8   University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland
,
A. Hasenburg
9   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center, Mainz, Deutschland
,
C. Hack
4   Department of Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuernberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
 
 

    Introduction Besides widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) among patients little data are available regarding health-care professionals’ (HCP) current implementation of CIM in clinical routine. To assess gynecologists’ attitude, counseling competence/qualification, application as well as implementation of complementary and integrative treatment strategies in clinical routine, a nationwide survey was conducted.

    Material and methods An AG IMed online survey was disseminated in cooperation with the DGGG. Over a period of 8 month (June 2019 - January 2020) a self-administered, 29-item online survey was sent to all 9000 members of the DGGG (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe). Further questionnaires were handed out to gynecologists on continuing educational events .

    Results This survey will answer open questions regarding current implementation of complementary and integrative treatment strategies alongside to conventional therapy. Indications and possible therapeutic options will be evaluated with regard to subject specific (gynecology, obstetrics and gynecological oncology) differences. Subjective expectations, and regional variances will be assessed. Further differences in clinical- and practice routine will be displayed.

    Conclusions This AG IMed survey will help to clarify open issues regarding HCPs attitude towards and use of complementary and integrative medicine. Results are pending and will be available at the congress; implications for clinical practice and further research will be discussed.

    *First and second authors contributed equally


    #

    Interessenkonflikt

    Ulrich Freitag: Mitarbeit in einem Wissenschaftlichen Beirat (Honorar + Reisekosten): SPMSD, MSD, Sanofi, Pasteur; Vortrags-/oder Schulungstätigkeit (Honorar + Reisekosten): SPMSD, MSD Sherko Kümmel: He reports personal fees from Roche/Genentech Health, Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Somatex, MSD, Pfizer, PFM Medical, Lilly, Sonoscape, non-fictional support from Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, Sonoscape, outside the submitted work. Donata Grimm: Study support: Greiner Bio-One GmbH; Honoraria: Roche, ESOP, Genomic Health, Oncotype, CCH received honoraria from Roche and Novartis Petra Voiß: Grant: Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung; Consulting Role: Novartis; Honoraria: Roche, Novartis, Celgene All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Publication History

    Article published online:
    07 October 2020

    © 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.
    Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany