Skip Navigation



eCAM Advance Access published online on October 7, 2008
eCAM, doi:10.1093/ecam/nen065
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2008 The Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

An International Comparison of Attitudes Toward Traditional and Modern Medicine in a Chinese and an American Clinic Setting

Adam Burke1, Tony Kuo2,3, Rick Harvey1 and Jun Wang1

1Institute for Holistic Health Studies, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, 2Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and 3Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA

Introduction: International comparative research on traditional medicine (TM) offers a useful method for examining differences in patient characteristics and can provide insight into: (i) more universal characteristics which may cross cultures and international borders; (ii) unique characteristics influenced by regional/national factors; and (iii) cultural values of immigrant populations. To explore these issues TM patients from the United States and China were compared. Methods: Data collection took place at two TM college clinics. A convenience sample of 128 patients in China and 127 patients in the United States completed a 28-item questionnaire. Results: There was a marked similarity between the two patient groups in terms of the biological characteristics of age and gender. Musculoskeletal issues were the most common presenting complaints in the United States; while, in China TM was used for a more diverse array of conditions. The majority of patients in both countries had initially used allopathic medicine (AM); significantly, more of the United States respondents stopped allopathic treatment after beginning traditional treatment. In comparing the two countries, patients in China were significantly more satisfied with AM and American patients significantly more satisfied with TM. In comparing the two medicines, the patient samples in both countries were significantly more satisfied with TM than AM. Discussion: Although treatment often originated with allopathic providers, many patients sought alternatives presumably to find the best solution to their problems. This tendency toward self-assignment suggests that a pluralistic healthcare system may provide the greatest satisfaction resulting from personal choice and improved outcomes.

Keywords: Acupuncture therapy/utilization – complementary therapies/utilization – cross-cultural – patient satisfaction – traditional medicine

For reprints and all correspondence: Adam Burke, PhD, MPH, LAc, Institute for Holistic Health Studies, Department of Health Education, HSS327, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA. Tel: +1-415-338-1774; Fax: +1-415-338-0570; E-mail: aburke{at}sfsu.edu

Received August 4, 2007; accepted September 5, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.