Abstract
Background In daily practice, healthcare practitioners face many challenges in ethical and professional decision making. Currently, little is known on the ethical and professional deliberations and weighing benefits against risks in daily complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice. The aim of this study was to combine the Utrecht method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in deliberations, weighing benefits against risks of using ginger for a pregnant woman suffering nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) along with other comorbidities. Methods A hypothetical case was constructed using the twelve tips for constructing dilemma case-based assessment. Three CAM practitioners, two physicians, three pharmacists, and two patients were recruited, and the Utrecht and the AHP methods were combined and used to deliberate and weigh benefits against risks of using ginger for the presented case. Results Responses from the ten panelists were obtained. Priority ratings showed significantly higher scores (p-value < 0.001) for alleviating symptoms of NVP (30.7% ± 16.6%) compared to other potential benefits. Increasing the risk of bleeding was given significantly higher (p-value < 0.0001) weight scores (24.7% ± 13.5%) than other potential side effects. Potential risk of spontaneous abortion and risk of impairment of fetal development were given higher (p-value < 0.001) weight scores than risk of fetal hypoglycemia. When benefits were compared against side effects and risks to the fetus and pregnancy, potential benefits were given higher (p-value < 0.001) weight scores (72.3% ± 5.2%). Conclusions Considering the anticipated benefits and risks, a shared decision was made to use ginger in the case presented. The woman should also be informed of the potential side effects and risks of using ginger. The use of this combined method might promote openness and transparency in making shared decisions for healthcare providers and patients.
Highlights
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is one of the most prevalent complains of pregnant women during the first trimester of pregnancy [1]
This study aimed to analyze for the first time priorities of healthcare providers and patients when a medicinal plant offers potential benefits and at the same time has potential side effects and poses potential risks to the fetus and pregnancy, especially when multiple criteria contributed to the overall assessment
This study demonstrates that the Utrecht method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be combined and used to facilitate a shared decision in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice
Summary
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is one of the most prevalent complains of pregnant women during the first trimester of pregnancy [1]. In about 2% of pregnancies, women might develop hyperemesis gravidarum which is the most severe form of NVP [1,2,3] If left untreated, this condition has serious consequences on the woman and her developing fetus [4,5,6]. The aim of this study was to combine the Utrecht method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in deliberations, weighing benefits against risks of using ginger for a pregnant woman suffering nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) along with other comorbidities. When benefits were compared against side effects and risks to the fetus and pregnancy, potential benefits were given higher (p-value < 0.001) weight scores (72.3% ± 5.2%). The woman should be informed of the potential side effects and risks of using ginger The use of this combined method might promote openness and transparency in making shared decisions for healthcare providers and patients
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
