Perceptions and attitudes regarding complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine among published neurology authors: a large-scale, international cross-sectional survey.

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.

Oncology researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has become an increasingly popular supportive therapy option for patients with cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate how researchers and clinicians in the oncology field perceive CAIM. METHODS: We conducted an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey for researchers and clinicians who have published their work in oncology journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. The link to the survey was sent to 47, 991 researchers and clinicians whose contact information was extracted from their publications. The survey included various multiple-choice questions, and one open-ended question at the end to allow for any additional comments. RESULTS: 751 respondents completed the survey, and they mostly identified themselves as researchers (n = 329, 45.13%), or as both researchers and clinicians (n = 332, 45.45%) in the field of oncology. Over half of the respondents perceive mind-body therapies (n = 354, 54.97%) to be the most promising CAIM category with regards to the prevention, treatment, and/or management of diseases related to oncology, and many respondents agreed that most CAIM therapies are safe (n = 218, 37.39%), and that clinicians should receive training on CAIM therapies via formal (n = 225, 38.59%) and supplemental education (n = 290, 49.83%). However, many respondents were unsure when asked if most CAIM therapies are effective (n = 202, 34.77%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study demonstrated great current interest in the use of CAIM in oncology. This information can serve as a foundation for conducting additional research and creating customized educational materials for researchers and clinicians in oncology.

Mind-body therapy for treating fibromyalgia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fibromyalgia is a chronic and disabling condition that presents management challenges for both patients and healthcare providers. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of mind-body therapies in the treatment and/or management of fibromyalgia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL databases from their inception to December 2023. Eligible articles included adults diagnosed with fibromyalgia participating in a mind-body therapy intervention and were published from the beginning of 2012 onwards. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. RESULTS: Of 3866 records screened, 27 studies (30 articles) met our inclusion criteria, in which 22 were randomized controlled trials and 5 were quasi-experimental studies. Mind-body therapies included guided imagery (n = 5), mindfulness-based stress reduction (n = 5), qi gong (n = 5), tai chi (n = 5), biofeedback (n = 3), yoga (n = 2), mindfulness awareness training (n = 1), and progressive muscle relaxation (n = 1). With the exception of mindfulness-based stress reduction, all therapies had at least one study showing significant improvements in pain at the end of treatment. Multiple studies on guided imagery, qi gong, and tai chi observed significant improvements in pain, fatigue, multidimensional function, and sleep. Approximately one-third of the studies reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that mind-body therapies are potentially beneficial for adults with fibromyalgia. Further research is necessary to determine if the positive effects observed post-intervention are sustained. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io) (September 12, 2023; https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/6w7ac).

The Provision of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Information and Services: a Review of World Leading Oncology Hospital Websites.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients use complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) to improve their psychological and functional health. However, there is little known about the extent of CAIM information and services provided on oncology hospital websites. METHODS: This study reviewed public-facing websites to determine the degree of CAIM information provided and services offered by the world's leading cancer hospitals in 2021; this ranking was informed by a large survey of medical professionals led by Newsweek and Statista. Nine authors extracted data from hospital websites individually and in triplicate, prior to meeting to revise data extractions. Data analysis was then performed by two authors to determine how many hospitals provided CAIM descriptions and offered CAIM services, and the extent of CAIM information provided. RESULTS: A total of 131 hospitals were included in this study. Of the eligible hospitals, 50.38% (n = 66) provided a theoretical description of CAIM; 48.09% (n = 63) provided a description of one or more CAIM therapies; 63.36% (n = 83) offered one or more CAIM therapies to cancer patients. The most common therapies described were the same as the most common therapies offered. These therapies are massage, special foods and diets, acupuncture, meditation, yoga, and creative outlets. While CAIM therapies were commonly offered, information surrounding the benefits and side effects associated with these therapies varied. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of CAIM standardization worldwide, there is a need for increased CAIM information provision on hospital websites to better inform and empower patients to make well-informed decisions about their health.

Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with neck pain frequently turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to seek relief. However, conventional healthcare providers often lack adequate CAM therapy knowledge to deliver informed recommendations to patients. The purpose of this study was to identify mention of CAM in neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and assess the quality of CAM recommendations using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020 in addition to the Guidelines International Network and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible CPGs providing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the AGREE II instrument, once to assess the overall CPG and then once to assess the CAM sections specifically. RESULTS: From 643 unique search results, 15 CPGs on the treatment and/or management of neck pain were identified, and 8 made recommendations on CAM therapy. Regarding scaled domain percentages, the overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 5 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): (1) scope and purpose (93.4%, 93.1%), (2) stakeholder involvement (81.6%, 81.9%), (3) rigour of development (70.8%, 66.3%), (4) clarity of presentation (64.9%, 60.8%), (5) applicability (39.3%, 33.6%), and (6) editorial independence (47.9%, 45.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most neck pain CPGs made CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations is lower than overall recommendations across all domains with the exception of stakeholder involvement. This disparity highlights the need for CAM recommendations quality improvement. Although many patients with neck pain seek CAM therapies, few CPGs are available for healthcare providers and patients.

The quality of health information provided on web sites selling cannabis to consumers in Canada is poor.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is used by millions of people for both medical and recreational purposes, and this use is even greater in jurisdictions where it is legalized, such as Canada. Online cannabis vendors have gained popularity for purchasing cannabis due to easy access and convenience to consumers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of health information provided by web sites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers and to further identify trends in the information provided. METHODS: Six different searches were conducted on Google.ca, and the first 40 webpages of each search were screened for eligibility. A total of 33 unique web sites of cannabis vendors selling products to Canadian consumers were identified and included. The DISCERN instrument, which consists of 16 questions divided into three sections, was used to evaluate the quality of cannabis-related health information on these web sites. RESULTS: Across the 33 web sites, the average of the summed DISCERN scores was 36.83 (SD = 9.73) out of 75, and the mean score for the overall quality of the publication (DISCERN question 16) was 2.41 (SD = 0.71) out of 5. Many of these web sites failed to discuss uncertainties in research evidence on cannabis, the impact of cannabis use on quality of life, alternatives to cannabis use, risks associated with cannabis use, and lacked references to support claims on effects and benefits of use. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the quality of cannabis-related health information provided by online vendors is poor. Healthcare providers should be aware that patients may use these web sites as primary sources of information and appropriately caution patients while directing them to high-quality sources. Future research should serve to replicate this study in other jurisdictions and assess the accuracy of information provided by online cannabis vendors, as this was outside the scope of the DISCERN instrument.

The Presence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations in Head and Neck Cancer Guidelines: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A high proportion of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, healthcare professionals generally have little knowledge about the safety and efficacy of these therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of HNC. RECENT FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for HNC CPGs published between 2009 and April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also were searched. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Of 305 unique search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 4 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 4 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (93.8%, 93.8%), clarity of presentation (88.2%, 64.6%), stakeholder involvement (68.8%, 39.6%), rigor of development (58.3%, 34.6%), editorial independence (42.7%, 42.7%), and applicability (51.6%, 19.8%). Quality varied within and between CPGs. Highly scoring CPGs serve as evidence-based resources that clinicians can use to inform their patients about safe and effective CAM use; CPGs achieving variable or lower scores could be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development/implementation tools. Future research should identify CAM therapies supported by sufficient evidence to be included as part of HNC CPGs.

A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Providing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Up to 80% of patients with breast cancer are reported to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite this high prevalence, many healthcare providers have little knowledge and education surrounding this topic and may be inadequately prepared to discuss such therapies with their patients. Given this knowledge gap, the purpose of this study was to systematically identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of breast cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Thirty-four CPGs were deemed eligible, 5 of which mentioned CAM, and 4 of which made CAM recommendations. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed with the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were (% overall, % CAM) as follows: scope and purpose (100.0%, 100.0%), editorial independence (100.0%, 100.0%), clarity of presentation (97.2%, 80.6%), rigour of development (80.2%, 80.2%), stakeholder involvement (88.9%, 77.8%), and applicability (58.3%, 58.3%). CPGs with favourable scores may provide practitioners with guidance on safe and effective use of CAM therapies. A need exists to improve the quality of CAM recommendations in CPGs.

Quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.

AIMS: Approximately 70% of Americans with diabetes have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the past year. Healthcare providers often receive minimal training on these therapies and subsequently rely on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to supplement their knowledge about the safe and effective use of CAM for the treatment/management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in CPGs for the treatment and/or management of T2DM. DATA SYNTHESIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020, in addition to the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. CPGs containing treatment and/or management recommendations for T2DM were eligible; those with CAM recommendations were quality-assessed with the AGREE II instrument twice, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Twenty-seven CPGs were deemed eligible, of which 7 made CAM recommendations. Mean scaled domain percentages were (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (89.7%, 79.8%), clarity of presentation (85.7%, 48.4%), stakeholder involvement (67.9%, 28.2%), applicability (54.8%, 20.2%), rigour of development (49.7%, 35.7%), and editorial independence (44.1%, 44.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Quality varied within and across CPGs; domain scores across CAM sections generally scored lower than the overall CPG. Given that CAM therapies for T2DM are only represented in one-quarter of eligible CPGs and are of lower quality, a knowledge gap exists for healthcare providers who seek evidence-based information on this topic in order to effectively counsel inquiring patients.

Dietary and herbal supplements for weight loss: assessing the quality of patient information online.

BACKGROUND: Given the high prevalence of dietary and herbal supplement (DHS) use in tandem with the growing ease of internet access, patients commonly search online for consumer health information about these products. One common reason for DHSs use includes weight loss. Healthcare providers need to be aware of the quality of online information about DHSs for weight loss so they can adequately counsel their patients and provide them with guidance surrounding the identification of high-quality information resources. This study aimed to assess the quality of online DHSs consumer health information for weight loss that a "typical" patient might access online. METHODS: Six search terms were used to generate the first 20 websites on the Google search engine in four countries: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (n = 480 websites). After applying exclusion criteria, eligible websites were quality assessed using the DISCERN instrument. This tool is comprised of 16 questions, each evaluated on a 5-point scale. The averages and standard deviations for each DISCERN instrument item, in addition to overall summed scores between 15 and 75 were calculated. RESULTS: Across 87 eligible websites, the mean summed score was 44.80 (SD = 11.53), while the mean overall DISCERN score of each website was 2.72 (SD = 0.99). In general, websites detailed and achieved their specified aims and described treatment benefits. However, most websites failed to describe the impact of treatment on overall quality of life and the impact of a no treatment option. The highest-scoring websites were largely government or health portal websites, while the lowest-scoring websites were largely commercial in nature. CONCLUSION: High variability in DISCERN instrument scores was found across all websites assessed. Healthcare providers should be aware of the fact that their patients may be accessing misinformation online surrounding the use of DHSs for weight loss. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to ensure that they are providing their patients with guidance on how to identify high-quality resources online, in order that safe, effective, and evidence-based decisions are made surrounding the use of DHSs for weight loss.

Barriers, knowledge, and training related to pharmacists' counselling on dietary and herbal supplements: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are recognized as one of the most accessible healthcare providers and are licensed to advise patients on drugs and health products including dietary and herbal supplements (DHSs). The objective of this study was to identify barriers, knowledge, and training that pharmacists report related to DHSs counselling. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception to May 8th, 2020. Eligible articles contained qualitative data with a specific focus on pharmacists' perceived knowledge, training, and barriers to DHSs counselling. Relevant data were extracted, and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. The following three main themes were identified: challenges to pharmacists obtaining DHSs education, postgraduate workplace challenges surrounding DHSs, and pharmacists' perceived role and importance on DHSs. Low knowledge of DHSs and the limited regulations surrounding DHSs acting as a barrier to counselling were common findings supported by the eligible articles. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of pharmacists' knowledge and awareness of DHSs stems from a variety of factors including a lack of education and training in the field, limited regulations surrounding DHSs, and inadequate availability of DHS information resources in the pharmacy. Pharmacists were unable to confidently counsel patients due to these aforementioned factors in addition to reporting that they lacked time. Further research that reviews pharmacy education and workplace training, and improving DHS regulations are warranted future directions.

Facilitators and barriers to the regulation of medical cannabis: a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, several political, legislative, judicial, consumer, and commercial processes around the world have advanced legalization efforts for the use of medical cannabis (MC). As the use of MC evolves through legislative reform, with an increase in public acceptance and therapeutic potential, a need exists to further investigate the facilitators and barriers to MC regulation. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify the facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of MC regulations. MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched; no restrictions were placed on geographic location/jurisdiction. Eligible articles included those that evaluated the MC regulatory framework of one or more countries. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were deemed eligible and included in this review. Themes identified include: (1) effects of conflicts, mindset, and ideology of state population, (2) the use of comparisons to analyze MC regulation, and (3) the need for more knowledge, advice, and empirical/clinical evidence to inform future MC policies. CONCLUSION: Policymakers should be aware of facilitators to the MC regulation implementation process, such as the influence of state and federal congruence, increased transparency, and the incorporation of stakeholder concerns, in order to effectively respond to a growing societal acceptance of MC and its use among patients. Given a comprehensive understanding of these influential factors, policymakers may be better equipped to meet the consumer and commercial demands of a rapidly evolving MC regulatory environment.

Guidelines for Cancer-Related Pain: A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although up to 85% of patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), they commonly do not disclose this information to their healthcare providers. Cancer-related pain (CRP) is one of the most common symptoms among those who may seek CAM. This study was conducted to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of CRP, as this has not been explored in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify cancer pain CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from 2009 to 2020. The Guideline International Network and the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs on CRP in adults were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: Of 771 unique search results, 13 mentioned CAM and 11 made CAM recommendations. Eligible CPGs were published in 2009 or later and focused on the treatment/management of CRP. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest ranged from (overall, CAM): 88.1%, 88.1% (for scope and purpose) to 21.0%, 8.5% (for applicability). Quality varied within and across CPGs. One CPG was recommended by both appraisers; 6 were recommended as "Yes" or "Yes with modifications." CONCLUSIONS: The present study has identified and summarized a number of CPGs that clinicians may consult to understand what CAMs are recommended in the context of the treatment and/or management of CRP.

Quality of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations in low back pain guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with low back pain (LBP) often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to seek relief. The purpose of this study was to determine mention of CAM in LBP clinical practice guidelines and assess the quality of CAM recommendations using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify LBP guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Eligible guidelines providing CAM recommendations were assessed with the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: From 181 unique search results, 22 guidelines on the treatment and/or management of LBP were found, and 17 made recommendations on CAM therapy. With regard to scaled domain percentages, this overall guideline scored higher than the CAM section for 4 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): (1) scope and purpose (88.6%, 87.1%), (2) clarity of presentation (83.0%, 73.2%), (3) stakeholder involvement (57.0%, 41.7%), (4) rigor of development (47.2%, 44.7%), (5) editorial independence (34.8%, 34.8%) and (6) applicability (31.8%, 21.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of LBP guidelines made CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations is significantly lower than overall recommendations across all domains with the exception of scope and purpose and editorial independence. This difference highlights the need for CAM recommendation quality improvement. Future research should identify CAM therapies which are supported by sufficient evidence to serve as the basis for guideline development. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Web-based online resources about adverse interactions or side effects associated with complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review, summarization and quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Given an increased global prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, healthcare providers commonly seek CAM-related health information online. Numerous online resources containing CAM-specific information exist, many of which are readily available/accessible, containing information shareable with their patients. To the authors' knowledge, no study has summarized nor assessed the quality of content contained within these online resources for at least a decade, specifically pertaining to information about adverse effects or interactions. METHODS: This study provides summaries of web-based online resources that provide safety information on potential interactions or adverse effects of CAM. Specifically, clinicians are the intended users of these online resources containing patient information which they can then disseminate to their patients. All online resources were assessed for content quality using the validated rating tool, DISCERN. RESULTS: Of 21 articles identified in our previously published scoping review, 23 online resources were eligible. DISCERN assessments suggests that online resources containing CAM-specific information vary in quality. Summed DISCERN scores had a mean of 56.13 (SD = 10.25) out of 75. Online resources with the highest total DISCERN scores across all questions included Micromedex (68.50), Merck Manual (67.50) and Drugs.com (66.50). Online resources with the lowest total scores included Drug Information (33.00), Caremark Drug Interactions (42.50) and HIV Drug Interactions (43.00). The DISCERN questions that received the highest mean score across all online resources referred to whether the risks were described for each treatment (4.66), whether the aims were clear (4.58), whether the source achieved those aims (4.58), and whether the website referred to areas of uncertainty (4.58). The DISCERN questions that received the lowest mean score across all online resources assessed whether there was discussion about no treatment being used (1.29) and how treatment choices would affect quality of life (2.00). CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive list of online resources containing CAM-specific information. Informed by the appraisal of these resources, this study provides a summarized list of high quality, evidence-based, online resources about CAM and CAM-related adverse effects. This list of recommended resources can thereby serve as a useful reference for clinicians, researchers, and patients.

The design of behavioural interventions labelled as patient-mediated: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-mediated interventions (PMIs) directed at patients and/or physicians improve patient or provider behaviour and patient outcomes. However, what constitutes a PMI is not clear. This study described interventions explicitly labelled as "patient-mediated" in primary research. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, PsychINFO, HealthSTAR, Social Work Abstracts, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched from inception on 1 January 2017 for English language studies that developed or evaluated behavioural interventions referred to as "patient-mediated" or "patient mediated" in the full text. Screening and data extraction were independently duplicated. Data were extracted and summarized on study and intervention characteristics. Interventions were categorized as 1 of 4 PMI pathways. RESULTS: Eight studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 1 observational study and 3 qualitative studies) were included. No studies explicitly defined PMI, and few PMIs were described in terms of content and format. Although 3 studies employed physician interventions, only patient interventions were considered PMIs. One study achieved positive improvement in patient behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Research is needed to generate consensus on the PMI concept, employ theory when designing or evaluating PMIs, establish the effectiveness of different types of PMIs, and understand when and how to employ PMIs alone or combined with other interventions.

The quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine clinical practice guidelines on herbal medicines, acupuncture and spinal manipulation: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is often not disclosed by patients, and can be unfamiliar to health care professionals. This may lead to underuse of beneficial CAM therapies, and overuse of other CAM therapies with little proven benefit or known contraindications. No prior research has thoroughly evaluated the credibility of knowledge-based resources. The purpose of this research was to assess the quantity and quality of CAM guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify CAM guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in January 2016 from 2003 to 2015. The National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health web site, and two CAM journals were also searched. Eligible guidelines published in English language by non-profit agencies on herbal medicine, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation for adults with any condition were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: From 3,126 unique search results, 17 guidelines (two herbal medicine, three acupuncture, four spinal manipulation, eight mixed CAM therapies) published in 2003 or later and relevant to several clinical conditions were eligible. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were clarity of presentation (85.3 %), scope and purpose (83.3 %), rigour of development (61.2 %), editorial independence (60.1 %), stakeholder involvement (52.0 %) and applicability (20.7 %). Quality varied within and across guidelines. None of the 17 guidelines were recommended by both appraisers; 14 were recommended as Yes or Yes with modifications. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines that scored well could be used by patients and health care professionals as the basis for discussion about the use of these CAM therapies. In future updates, guidelines that achieved variable or lower scores could be improved according to specifications in the AGREE II instrument, and with insight from a large number of resources that are available to support guideline development and implementation. Future research should identify CAM therapies other than those reviewed here for which guidelines are available. Research is also needed on the safety and effectiveness of CAM therapies.

Making sense of "alternative", "complementary", "unconventional" and "integrative" medicine: exploring the terms and meanings through a textual analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medical pluralism has flourished throughout the Western world in spite of efforts to legitimize Western biomedical healthcare as "conventional medicine" and thereby relegate all non-physician-related forms of healthcare to an "other" category. These "other" practitioners have been referred to as "unconventional", "alternative" and "complementary", among other terms throughout the past half century. METHODS: This study investigates the discourses surrounding the changes in the terms, and their meanings, used to describe unconventional medicine in North America. Terms identified by the literature as synonymous to unconventional medicine were searched using the Scopus database. A textual analysis following the method described by Kripendorff 2013 was subsequently performed on the five most highly-cited unconventional medicine-related peer-reviewed literature published between 1970 and 2013. RESULTS: Five commonly-used, unconventional medicine-related terms were identified. Authors using "complementary and alternative", "complementary", "alternative", or "unconventional" tended to define them by what they are not (e.g., therapies not taught/used in conventional medicine, therapy demands not met by conventional medicine, and therapies that lack research on safety, efficacy and effectiveness). Authors defined "integrated/integrative" medicine by what it is (e.g., a new model of healthcare, the combining of both conventional and unconventional therapies, accounting for the whole person, and preventative maintenance of health). Authors who defined terms by "what is not" stressed that the purpose of conducting research in this area was solely to create knowledge. Comparatively, authors who defined terms by "what is" sought to advocate for the evidence-based combination of unconventional and conventional medicines. Both author groups used scientific rhetoric to define unconventional medical practices. CONCLUSIONS: This emergence of two groups of authors who used two different sets of terms to refer to the concept of "unconventional medicine" may explain why some journals, practitioner associations and research/practice centres may choose to use both "what is not" and "what is" terms in their discourse to attract interest from both groups. Since each of the two groups of terms (and authors who use them) has different meanings and goals, the evolution of this discourse will continue to be an interesting phenomenon to explore in the future.

A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey of Published Pediatrics Authors: Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine.

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.

An international, cross-sectional survey of psychiatry researchers and clinicians: perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.

Background: Psychiatry 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. Methods: We 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. Results: The 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%). Conclusion: The 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.