Evaluation of the efficacy of aromatherapy and complementary yoga on indicators of medication regimen complexity: A retrospective study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: In Japan, with aging population, there is a growing emphasis on community-based integrated care system, focusing on supporting healthy lifestyles and promoting prevention in medicine, nursing care, and welfare. Meanwhile, the U.S. is witnessing the widespread implementation of healthcare incorporating the concept of integrative health (IH), which combines evidence-based complementary approaches with conventional healthcare approaches. In this study, the focus was on aromatherapy and yoga, both of which were expected to have a positive effect on patients as complementary approaches. The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of the complementary approaches on pharmacotherapy. METHODS: This study was a single-facility, retrospective observational study. This study was conducted from March 3, 2022, to March 31, 2024. The data extraction of the patients was performed at the Maeda Clinic, and the analysis was performed at the collaborating institutions. Participants were enrolled, aged ≥ 20 years, who sought aromatherapy or yoga for 6-month. The primary endpoint was the MRCI-J score, which quantified the effect of variations in prescription drugs dosage form and usage before and after 6 months. The secondary endpoints were age, number of complementary approaches, number of clinic visits, change and rate of change in the number of prescription drugs, number of prescription drugs, and change and rate of change in the MRCI-J score, when grouped according to the increase in the MRCI-J score. RESULTS: 96 participants met the eligibility criteria. After 6 months, the complementary approaches were performed more frequently in the non-increased MRCI-J score group than in the increased MRCI-J score group (8.0 ± 5.8 vs. 5.3 ± 4.1; p < 0.01). The rate of change in the number of prescription drugs was significantly higher in the increased MRCI-J score group than in the non-increased MRCI-J score group (1.5 ± 0.77 vs.0.89 ± 0.18; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study determined patient profiles receiving complementary approaches, and changes in prescription drugs. The frequency of complementary approaches might have affected the changes in prescription.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.