Search

Background: The use of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is commonly used among pediatric patients for various conditions. Pediatrics clinicians’ and researchers’ perceptions towards the incorporation of CAIM therapies have varied. This study aims to investigate the perceptions of both pediatrics researchers and clinicians regarding CAIM. Methods: We conducted a large-scale, international cross-sectional online survey with published pediatrics authors who have published their work in pediatrics medical journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. In total, 34 494 researchers and clinicians were invited to complete the survey. The survey recorded respondents’ perceptions on various CAIM therapies. Descriptive statistics were generated from the quantitative survey results. A thematic analysis was conducted for responses to open ended questions. Results: In total, 731 pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers responded to the survey, with about half of the respondents being faculty members/principal investigators (56.10 %) and/or clinicians (43.45 %) and from the Americas (46.56 %) or Europe (30.53 %). Over half of the respondents viewed mind-body therapies favourably (62.01 %) and the fewest respondents held favourable perceptions of biofield therapies (6.98 %). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is value in conducting further research on CAIM therapies (85.52 %) and disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt comfortable recommending most CAIM therapies to patients (64.83 %). A thematic analysis of our findings demonstrates that many pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers support further research on CAIM. Conclusion: The findings from this study demonstrate that pediatrics clinicians and researchers have varying perceptions towards CAIM therapies. Respondents had the most positive perceptions of mind-body therapies and felt they did not have adequate training on CAIM. Further research is needed to establish more evidence-based educational resources on CAIM.

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors often struggle with side effects following treatment such as reduced quality of life, fatigue and psychological distress and need therefore efficient comprehensive interventions. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore CRC survivors’ expectations before the yoga intervention as well as their unique experiences beyond those reported with standard questionnaires.Methods Interpretative phenomenological approach was used in this qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after a 10-week yoga program (90 min once a week, Hatha Yoga) with CRC survivors enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Thematic analysis was used to uncover themes present in participants’ accounts.Results Nine patients participated in the interviews, mean interview duration was 27.49 min (SD = 7.71) before and 38.41 min (SD = 15.93) after the intervention. Our analysis identified following themes: (1) representations and expectations from the yoga intervention; (2) course structure and implementation; (3) perceptions and effects of the intervention; (4) differences between the study yoga intervention and other physical activities. The superordinate theme regarding effects of intervention included aspects of intervention at multiple levels such as emotional, physical, behavioral and spiritual.Conclusions This qualitative study provides valuable insight regarding CRC survivors’ expectations and experiences following a 10-week yoga intervention. While expectations varied from skepticism to specific symptom improvement, the majority of participants had a positive, open attitude towards yoga. Consistent with participants’ experiences, yoga may represent a promising intervention for CRC survivors if the groups’ specific concerns are taken into account.

BackgroundWith the increasing prevalence of stress, stress reduction is getting more and more important. Yoga is being considered as a non-pharmacological treatment option for stress.ObjectiveInvestigation of the effects of yoga on stress in stressed adults from the general population.MethodsDatabases were searched up to March 17, 2023 (updated search on May 17, 2024). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of yoga for stressed adults were included if they assessed perceived stress. Further outcomes were quality of life and stress-related physiological measures. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the quality of the evidence for each outcome was graded according to the GRADE recommendations.ResultsA total of 13 RCTs with 1026 participants were included in the qualitative analysis and nine RCTs in the quantitative analysis. The meta-analyses revealed low quality of evidence for short-term effects of yoga on stress compared to passive control groups (SMD=-0.69, 95%CI=-1.12- -0.25) and low quality of evidence for long-term effects on stress in favour of active control groups (SMD=0.23, 95%CI=0.06-0.40). There was moderate quality of evidence for short-term effects of yoga on quality of life compared to passive control groups (SMD=0.86, 95%CI=0.72-1.00). No adverse events occurred in the three safety reporting studies.ConclusionsAs there is low quality of evidence for short-term effects of yoga on perceived stress in stressed adults from the general population compared to passive control groups, yoga can be considered as a non-pharmacological treatment option for stress reduction.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/INPLASY-Protocol-4595.pdf INPLASY, identifier 202330062.

Abstract Background While many patients with neurological disorders and conditions use complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), little is known about the use, perceptions, and attitudes regarding CAIM among published neurology authors. With the increasing popularity of CAIM, our objective was to assess practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among published neurology authors. Methods We conducted an anonymous online survey of authors who had published articles in neurology journals indexed in MEDLINE. We emailed potential participants our cross-sectional electronic survey after extracting their email addresses from one of their publications in our sample of journals. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data from any open-ended questions. Results The survey was completed by 783 published neurology authors (1.7% response rate, 83.9% completion rate). Overall, respondents perceived CAIM to be promising in preventing, treating, and/or managing neurological diseases. Mind-body therapies received the most positive responses, indicated by over half of respondents cumulatively agreeing that they are promising (n = 368, 59.0%) and safe (n = 280, 50.3%). Whole medical systems and biofield therapy were less favourable. Most neurology clinicians reported a lack of formal (n = 211, 70.3%) and supplementary training (n = 158, 52.5%) on CAIM. Nearly half of clinicians did not feel comfortable counselling patients about CAIM therapies (n = 121, 44.5%), and over half did not feel comfortable recommending them (n = 161, 59.3%). A lack of scientific evidence for CAIM’s safety and efficacy was reported as the greatest challenge to CAIM (n = 515, 92.5%). The majority of respondents believed there is value to conducting research on this topic (n = 461, 82.0%) and supported increasing allocation of research funding towards CAIM (n = 241, 58.9%). Conclusions Although many participants found CAIM to be promising to the field of neurology, the vast majority did not feel open to integrating CAIM into mainstream medical practices on account of a perceived lack of scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy. Future studies can use our findings to gather more detailed insights, improve educational resources on CAIM within neurology, as well as examine what effects a tailored CAIM education has on the perceptions and attitudes of published neurology authors towards CAIM.

The field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) has garnered increasing attention due to its holistic approach to health and well-being. While the quantity of published research about TCIM has increased exponentially, critics have argued that the field faces challenges related to methodological rigour, reproducibility, and overall quality. This article proposes meta-research as one approach to evaluating and improving the quality of TCIM research. Meta-research, also known as research about research, can be defined as “the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives”. By systematically evaluating methodological rigour, identifying biases, and promoting transparency, meta-research can enhance the reliability and credibility of TCIM research. Specific topics of interest that are discussed in this article include the following: 1) study design and research methodology, 2) reporting of research, 3) research ethics, integrity, and misconduct, 4) replicability and reproducibility, 5) peer review and journal editorial practices, 6) research funding: grants and awards, and 7) hiring, promotion, and tenure. For each topic, we provide case examples to illustrate meta-research applications in TCIM. We argue that meta-research initiatives can contribute to maintaining public trust, safeguarding research integrity, and advancing evidence based TCIM practice, while challenges include navigating methodological complexities, biases, and disparities in funding and academic recognition. Future directions involve tailored research methodologies, interdisciplinary collaboration, policy implications, and capacity building in meta-research.

BackgroundPsychiatry is a branch of medicine that focuses on mental, behavioral and emotional well-being. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine has been an increasingly popular choice for patients with psychiatric disorders, therefore our study aimed to explore the perceptions of psychiatry researchers and clinicians on the use of CAIM.MethodsWe conducted an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey for researchers and clinicians who have published their work in psychiatry medical journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. 42,667 researchers and clinicians were sent the link to the survey after extraction of their email addresses from their respective publications. Respondents were asked numerous multiple-choice questions regarding their perceptions on various CAIM therapies, followed by an open-ended question where they could include any additional thoughts.ResultsThe survey was completed by 987 respondents, with a majority identifying as a researcher (n=447, 46.51%), or as both a researcher and a clinician (n=368, 38.29%) within the field of psychiatry. Most respondents (n=629, 78.04%) perceived mind-body therapies such as meditation, biofeedback, hypnosis, and yoga to be the most promising CAIM therapy for the prevention, treatment, and management of psychiatric diseases. Many participants said that they agree (n=285, 38.14%) that most CAIM therapies in general are safe, however, many disagree that CAIM therapies are effective (n=245, 32.93%). Respondents indicated that there is value to conducting research on CAIM therapies (n=356, 47.91%), and that there should be more funding allocated to researching these therapies (n=265, 35.71%). Respondents were also in agreement that clinicians should receive training on CAIM therapies through formal education (n=295, 39.76%) or supplementary education (n=380, 51.28%).ConclusionThe findings from this study showed that there is great interest and potential in researching CAIM within the field of psychiatry. This information can be used as a basis for further research and to develop tailored educational resources for researchers and clinicians in psychiatry.

Despite important progress in modern medicine, widely regarded as an indispensable foundation of healthcare in all highly advanced nations and regions, not all patients respond well to available treatments in biomedicine alone. Additionally, there are concerns about side effects of many medications and interventions, the unsustainable cost of healthcare and the low resolution of chronic non-communicable diseases and mental disorders whose incidence has risen in the last decades. Besides, the chronic stress and burnout of many healthcare professionals impairs the therapeutic relationship. These circumstances call for a change in the current paradigm and practices of biomedicine healthcare. Most of the world population (80%) uses some form of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (T&CM), usually alongside biomedicine. Patients seem equally satisfied with biomedicine and T&CM, but in the field of T&CM there are also many challenges, such as unsupported claims for safety and/or efficacy, contamination of herbal medicines and problems with regulation and quality standards. As biomedicine and T&CM seem to have different strengths and weaknesses, integration of both approaches may be beneficial. Indeed, WHO has repeatedly called upon member states to work on the integration of T&CM into healthcare systems. Integrative medicine (IM) is an approach that offers a paradigm for doing so. It combines the best of both worlds (biomedicine and T&CM), based on evidence for efficacy and safety, adopting a holistic personalized approach, focused on health. In the last decades academic health centers are increasingly supportive of IM, as evidenced by the foundation of national academic consortia for integrative medicine in Brazil (2017), the Netherlands (2018), and Germany (2024) besides the pioneering American consortium (1998). However, the integration process is slow and sometimes met with criticism and even hostility. The WHO T&CM strategies (2002–2005 and 2014–2023) have provided incipient guidance on the integration process, but several challenges are yet to be addressed. This policy review proposes several possible solutions, including the establishment of a global matrix of academic consortia for IM, to update and extend the WHO T&CM strategy, that is currently under review.

This educational article explores the convergence of open science practices and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), shedding light on the potential benefits and challenges of open science for the development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based TCIM. We emphasize the transformative shift in medical science towards open and collaborative practices, highlighting the limited application of open science in TCIM research despite its growing acceptance among patients. We define open science practices and discuss those that are applicable to TCIM, including: study registration; reporting guidelines; data, code and material sharing; preprinting; publishing open access; and reproducibility/replication studies. We explore the benefits of open science in TCIM, spanning improved research quality, increased public trust, accelerated innovation, and enhanced evidence-based decision-making. We also acknowledge challenges such as data privacy concerns, limited resources, and resistance to cultural change. We propose strategies to overcome these challenges, including ethical guidelines, education programs, funding advocacy, interdisciplinary dialogue, and patient engagement. Looking to the future, we envision the maturation of open science in TCIM, the development of TCIM-specific guidelines for open science practices, advancements in data sharing platforms, the integration of open data and artificial intelligence in TCIM research, and changes in the context of policy and regulation. We foresee a future where open science in TCIM leads to a better evidence base, informed decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transformative impacts on healthcare and research methodologies, highlighting the promising synergy between open science and TCIM for holistic, evidence-based healthcare solutions.

The convergence of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) with artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising frontier in healthcare. TCIM is a patient-centric approach that combines conventional medicine with complementary therapies, emphasizing holistic well-being. AI can revolutionize healthcare through data-driven decision-making and personalized treatment plans. This article explores how AI technologies can complement and enhance TCIM, aligning with the shared objectives of researchers from both fields in improving patient outcomes, enhancing care quality, and promoting holistic wellness. This integration of TCIM and AI introduces exciting opportunities but also noteworthy challenges. AI may augment TCIM by assisting in early disease detection, providing personalized treatment plans, predicting health trends, and enhancing patient engagement. Challenges at the intersection of AI and TCIM include data privacy and security, regulatory complexities, maintaining the human touch in patient-provider relationships, and mitigating bias in AI algorithms. Patients' trust, informed consent, and legal accountability are all essential considerations. Future directions in AI-enhanced TCIM include advanced personalized medicine, understanding the efficacy of herbal remedies, and studying patient-provider interactions. Research on bias mitigation, patient acceptance, and trust in AI-driven TCIM healthcare is crucial. In this article, we outlined that the merging of TCIM and AI holds great promise in enhancing healthcare delivery, personalizing treatment plans, preventive care, and patient engagement. Addressing challenges and fostering collaboration between AI experts, TCIM practitioners, and policymakers, however, is vital to harnessing the full potential of this integration.

BackgroundOpen science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS).MethodsCAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals.ResultsA total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8.ConclusionWhile several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Introduction and objectiveOpen science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers' practices and perceived barriers related to OS.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words "complementary", "alternative", or "integrative" medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months.ResultsThe survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%).ConclusionsAlthough many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM.