Chronic Diseases: Evaluation of the experience of patients treated in integrative health.
1|Barhoumi Nesrine|Institut Rafael|Institut Rafael|France|
2|Nathaniel Scher|Institut Rafael|Institut Rafael|france|
3|Clement Draghi|Institut Rafael|Institut Rafael|France|
4|alain toledano|Institut Rafael|Institut Rafael|France|
5|Shéhérazade Boyer-Tami,|Institut Rafael|Institut Rafael|France|
A qualitative study was conducted at the Rafaël Institute (September 2023 and January 2024). This study aimed to describe the experience of patients in integrative health.
Materials and Methods. The evaluation focused on the beginning, end, and post-program periods. Interviews with patients were conducted between 3 and 6 months after the end of their program. All interviews were recorded, and the verbatim was analyzed.
Results: Fourteen patients were interviewed (11 women and 3 men, average age of 53 years).Ten of them were employed. The others were on sick leave or had no professional activity. Chronic diseases included heart failure, polycystic kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, or Crohn’s disease. Patients were followed for an average of 9 months. During this period, they received 6.5 different types of treatments, mostly psycho-emotional (such as sophrology, psychology, or hypnosis), physical activity (APA or yoga), hands-on care (reflexology or osteopathy), and art therapy. Each patient received an average of 38 collective or individual treatment sessions during their program (median of 33). Words used to describe the patients’ feelings before joining the institute were “difficult, foggy, insomnia, pain, anxiety, anguish”, while words to describe their expectations were “relief, improvement, balance”. Words used to describe their experience included kindness, listening, reception, openness, support, professionalism, bright, intense, discovery”.
Conclusion: At a distance from the end of their program, patients found the experience beneficial in terms of self-confidence, acceptance of the disease, and ability to start activities outside the institute. Areas for improvement included various logistical aspects of care (appointments, schedules, targeting, etc.), the Institute’s tools (website, medical records, etc.), the caregiver-patient relationship, or the perceived difficulty of ending the program.