A study performed by Oregon Health & Science University and National College of Naturopathic Medicine has found that people with multiple sclerosis find benefits in the integration of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). This study showed that MS patients who use this integration of medicine find greater benefit from their conventional treatments, yet perceived their CAM providers to be better at skills related to emotional support. CAM providers were rated significantly higher than MDs on listening skills, care and concern, and patient empowerment. These results demonstrate that MS patients who choose to incorporate the use of both conventional and CAM therapies may find the best overall quality of care.

Another study performed in Northern-Eastern Germany by the University of Rostock, investigated the frequency of CAM use and which therapies have shown positive results for patients with MS.  In North America, the proportion of MS patients using CAM varies from 33% to 67%. This study shows that women with higher incomes and higher education tend to use complementary treatments more often then their counterparts.

The table below compares CAM modalities that showed improvement in relation to modalities that showed little or no improvement for patients with MS.

When rating the efficacy of CAM used by MS patients, mind-body therapies were reported to be the most effective. Much further research is needed in these areas of study. However, research so far has shown us, through the widespread use of CAM amongst MS patients, that such patients may make decisions about CAM in the absence of information from research.

Sources:  Shinto L, Yadav V, Morris C, Lapidus JA, Senders A, Bourdette D (2005). The perceived benefit and satisfaction from conventional and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in people with multiple sclerosis. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 13 (4): 264 -272; Apel A, Greim B,Zettl UK (2005). How frequently do patients with multiple sclerosis use complementary and alternative medicine? Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 13 (4): 258-263