Background: Patient decision-making concerning therapy choice has been thoroughly investigated in the Push/Pull framework: factors pushing the patient away from biomedicine and those pulling them towards Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). Others have examined lay etiology as a potential factor in CAM use.Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients employing only biomedicine and those using CAM. The coded and segmented data was quantified and modelled using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to explore what effects push/pull factors and etiology had on the decision-making processes.Results: There was a marked difference between our two subsamples concerning push factors: although both groups exhibited similar scaled relative code frequencies, the CAM network models were more interconnected, indicating that CAM users expressed dissatisfaction with a wider array of phenomena. Among pull factors, a preference for natural therapies accounted for differences between groups but did not retain a strong connection to rejecting conventional treatments. Etiology, particularly adherence to vitalism, was also a critical factor in both choice of therapy and rejection of biomedical treatments.Conclusions: Push factors had a crucial influence on decision-making, not as individual entities, but as a constellation of experienced phenomena. Belief in vitalism affects the patient’s explanatory model of illness, changing the interpretation of other etiological factors and illness itself. Scrutinizing individual push/pull factors or etiology does not explain therapeutic choices; it is from their interplay that decisions arise. Our unified, qualitative-and-quantitative methodological approach offers novel insight into decision-making by displaying connections among codes within patient narratives.
Innovative approaches to support patient decision making, improve safety, and enable large-scale clinical research
