Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The psychology of complementary and alternative medicine

  • Review
  • Published:
Evidence-Based Integrative Medicine

Abstract

This paper attempts to answer the question: What accounts for the universal rise in interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the growth of practitioners and potential patients seeking them out? It is recognised that there is great diversity both within CAM (in terms of philosophy, methodology, research) as well as between CAM and orthodox medicine. The limited empirical research concerning why people choose a CAM practitioner is reviewed. Six major reasons are given to answer the above question recognising their relationships to one another and that other reasons do exist. There is no typical patient, although the results do suggest that certain individuals based on their demography, medical history and belief system are most likely to choose CAM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aakster C. 1986. Concepts in alternative medicine. Soc Sci Med, 22: 265–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Abbot N, White A, Ernst E. 1996. Complementary medicine. Nature, 381:361.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bergin A, Garfield S. 1994. Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassileth B. 1988. Unorthodox cancer medicine. Cancer Invest, 4: 591–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easthope G, Tranter B, Gill G. 2000. General practitioners’ attitudes toward complementary therapies. Soc Sci Med, 51:1555–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg D, Davis R, Ettner S et al. 1998. Trends in alternative medicine use in the national survey. J Am Med Assoc, 11:1569–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg D, Kessler R, Foster C et al. 1993. Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs and patterns of use. N Engl J Med, 328:246–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E. 1997. Homeopathy: past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 44:435–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E. 2000. The British House of Lords enquiry into complementary and alternative medicine. Focus Altern Complement Therap, 5:3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E, Furnham A. 2000. BMWs and complementary/alternative medicine. Focus Altern Complement Therap, 5:253–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E, Kaptchuk T. 1996. Complementary medicine — the case for dialogue. J R Coll Physicians Lond, 30:410–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E, Pittler M. 1998. The effectiveness of acupuncture in treating acute dental pain: a systematic review. Br Dent J, 184:443–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst E, Willoughby M, Weihmayr T. 1995. Nine possible reasons for choosing complementary medicine. Perfusion, 8:356–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher P, Ward A. 1994. Complementary medicine in Europe. Br Med J, 309:107–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A. 1999. Ignorance about homeopathy. J Altern Complement Med, 5:475–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A. 2000. How the public classify complementary medicine: a factor analytic study. Complement Therap Med, 8:82–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A. 2002. Complementary and alternative medicine. Psychologist, 15:228–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Kirkaldy B. 1995. The health beliefs and behaviours of orthodox and complementary medicine clients. Br J Clin Psychol, 25:49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Vincent C. 2000. Reasons for using CAM. In Kelner M, Wellman B, eds. Complementary and alternative medicine. Amsterdam: Harwood. p 61–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Vincent C. 2001. Cultivating health through complementary medicine. In MacLacllan M, ed. Cultivating health. Chichester: Wiley. p 113–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray R. 1998. Four perspectives on unconventional therapy. Health, 2: 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertschel G, Kohren R, Hauser G et al. 1996. Complementary medicine today: patient decision for physician or magician. Eur J Physical Med Rehabil, 6:144–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelner M, Wellman B. 1997. Who seeks alternative care? A profile of the users of five modes of treatment. J Altern Complement Med, 3: 127–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas K, Carr J, Westlake L et al. 1991. Use of non-orthodox and conventional health care in Great Britain. Br Med J, 302:207–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner R. 1998. A proposal for classifying complementary therapies. Complement Therap Med, 6:141–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent C, Furnham A. 1996. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? Br J Clin Psychol, 35:37–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent C, Furnham A. 1997. Complementary medicine: a research perspective. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent C, Furnham A. 1999. Complementary medicine: state of the evidence. J R Soc Med, 92:170–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • White A, Ernst E. 2000. Economic analysis of complementary medicine: a systematic review. Complement Therap Med, 8:111–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK

    Adrian Furnham

Authors
  1. Adrian Furnham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Furnham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furnham, A. The psychology of complementary and alternative medicine. Evid-Based-Integrative-Med 1, 57–64 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/01197065-200301010-00010

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/01197065-200301010-00010

Keywords

Search

Navigation