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

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

The relationship between use of complementary and alternative medicine and health literacy in chronically ill outpatient cases: a cross-sectional study in southeastern Iran

“…A review of the literature shows that healthcare workers are increasingly studying about the CAM as one of the treatment methods ( 27 , 28 ). It is very important to evaluate factors affecting health literacy in chronically ill outpatient cases.…”

Quality methods in Virtual and Augmented Reality: A systematic literature review

“…(Booth et al 2016;Fisch and Block 2018) For this process there is a structural framework, the so-called Systematic Literature Review (SLR) with documented criteria and standards (Dyba et al 2005), which are applied. (Tranfield et al 2003: 209) A SLR is used in different areas such as economy, social policy, nursing (Kitchenham et al 2009), medicine (Phutrakool and Pongpirul 2022), software development (Babar and Zhang 2009) and process modeling (Zhang et al 2008). Likewise, the SLR is used in the range of Lean Management and its different areas of application such as in production, administration, logistics, Leadership, development or health service (Ilangakoon et al 2022).…”

Yoga and massage are associated with small experimental placebo effects in chronic orofacial pain

“…Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a particular set of chronic pain conditions that involve dysfunction of the complicated temporomandibular joint and/or mastication muscles, which can lead to chronic pain, affecting 5%-12% of the general population (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, 2020). Moreover, there is no standard form of treatment that makes TMD difficult for clinicians to treat thus furthering the perspective of endorsing endogenous pain modulation (Clark et al, 2016;Mogil et al, 1996;Pecina & Zubieta, 2015;Tchivileva et al, 2020) with Complementary and Integrative Health Approaches (CIHA) (Phutrakool & Pongpirul, 2022).…”