Andreas Boecker

Understanding the role of scientific evidence in consumer evaluation of natural health products for osteoarthritis an application of the means end chain approach

BackgroundOver 30% of individuals use natural health products (NHPs) for osteoarthritis-related pain. The Deficit Model for the Public Understanding of Science suggests that if individuals are given more information (especially about scientific evidence) they will make better health-related decisions. In contrast, the Contextual Model argues that scientific evidence is one of many factors that explain how consumers make health-related decisions. The primary objective was to investigate how the level of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of NHPs impacts consumer decision-making in the self-selection of NHPs by individuals with osteoarthritis.MethodsThe means-end chain approach to product evaluation was used to compare laddering interviews with two groups of community-dwelling Canadian seniors who had used NHPs to treat their osteoarthritis. Group 1 (n=13) had used only NHPs (glucosamine and/or chondroitin) with “high” scientific evidence of efficacy. Group 2 (n=12) had used NHPs (methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) and/or bromelain) with little or no scientific evidence supporting efficacy. Content analysis and generation of hierarchical value maps facilitated the identification of similarities and differences between the two groups.ResultsThe dominant decision-making chains for participants in the two scientific evidence categories were similar. Scientific evidence was an important decision-making factor but not as important as the advice from health care providers, friends and family. Most participants learned about scientific evidence via indirect sources from health care providers and the media.ConclusionsThe Contextual Model of the public understanding of science helps to explain why our participants believed scientific evidence is not the most important factor in their decision to use NHPs to help manage their osteoarthritis.

Use of Natural Health Products How Does Being “Natural” Affect Choice?

Introduction. Little is currently known about how and why consumers choose to use natural health products (NHPs), such as herbs and vitamins. Objective. The objective of this study was to explore how the product attributes of NHPs and conventional pharmaceutical sleep aids are linked to consequences and values in consumers’ decision making. Methods. During the spring and summer of 2007, 60- to 90-minute semistructured, laddering interviews based on the means-ends chain approach were conducted with 25 participants experiencing sleep problems in Toronto, Canada, who were selected to have a range of demographic characteristics. Results. Participants varied considerably in the complexity of their decision processes, as between 3 and 14 attribute-consequence-value associations were elicited per interview. The factors found to be most important in determining the type of sleep aid chosen by consumers were whether the product was natural or chemical, whether it was perceived to work or have side effects, and participants’ perceptions of the impact of product use on their relationships and, subsequently, on their quality of life. Participants described making different tradeoffs between product attributes (e.g., naturalness) and perceived consequences (e.g., efficacy and side effects) depending on the situational context and indicated that these tradeoffs were done in an effort to maximize values such as overall quality of life. Conclusions. The naturalness and associated perceived lack of side effects of a product were more important than perceived efficacy for consumers selecting sleep aids for regular use. Only in special cases where efficacy was deemed essential (e.g., prior to important life or work events) did efficacy become a more important factor in the decision-making process.