13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.

          Results

          Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42–62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37–54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods.

          Conclusion

          Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42019125628

          Graphical abstract

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01882-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline

          In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. This lack of transparency in the methods can cast doubt on the validity of the review findings. The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline has been developed to guide clear reporting in reviews of interventions in which alternative synthesis methods to meta-analysis of effect estimates are used. This article describes the development of the SWiM guideline for the synthesis of quantitative data of intervention effects and presents the nine SWiM reporting items with accompanying explanations and examples.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

            In the course of performing systematic reviews on the prevalence of low back and neck pain, we required a tool to assess the risk of study bias. Our objectives were to (1) modify an existing checklist and (2) test the final tool for interrater agreement. The final tool consists of 10 items addressing four domains of bias plus a summary risk of bias assessment. Two researchers tested the interrater agreement of the tool by independently assessing 54 randomly selected studies. Interrater agreement overall and for each individual item was assessed using the proportion of agreement and Kappa statistic. Raters found the tool easy to use, and there was high interrater agreement: overall agreement was 91% and the Kappa statistic was 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.86). Agreement was almost perfect for the individual items on the tool and moderate for the summary assessment. We have addressed a research gap by modifying and testing a tool to assess risk of study bias. Further research may be useful for assessing the applicability of the tool across different conditions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                doctorkrit@gmail.com
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                14 January 2022
                14 January 2022
                2022
                : 11
                : 10
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7922.e, ISNI 0000 0001 0244 7875, School of Global Health and Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, , Chulalongkorn University, ; 1873 Rama IV Road, Patumwan, Bangkok, 10330 Thailand
                [2 ]GRID grid.21107.35, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, Department of International Health and Department of Health, Behavior and Society, , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ; Baltimore, MD USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.461211.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0617 2356, Bumrungrad International Hospital, ; Bangkok, Thailand
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0792-0275
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3818-9761
                Article
                1882
                10.1186/s13643-021-01882-4
                8759198
                35027078
                73956c1b-9b97-4290-a9f4-6de2e1f89717
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 January 2021
                : 27 December 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine, Ministry of Public Health
                Award ID: N/A
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University
                Award ID: RA62/059
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Public health
                acceptance,use,complementary and alternative medicine,medical specialist
                Public health
                acceptance, use, complementary and alternative medicine, medical specialist

                Comments

                Comment on this article