Scandinavian research on complementary and alternative medicine: A bibliometric study.

Aim: The aim of this study is to analyse the development of Scandinavian research on complementary and alternative medicine in terms of publication pattern and general content. Furthermore we will map research networks. Methods and data: This study is based on bibliometric methods. The dataset consists of 1441 publications with at least one author with a Scandinavian address and/or organisational affiliation, from 2005-2017, in Medline and Web of Science. Results and conclusions: Complementary and alternative medicine is a small and moderately growing research field in Scandinavia, with an average of 120 publications per year. The largest sub-term is integrative and complementary medicine, but the majority of documents are classified as other medical sub-fields. A similar pattern is found regarding the sources. The Medical Subject Heading classifications of the documents and the author keywords indicate that much of the relevant research takes a general focus on complementary and alternative medicine. Regarding specific therapies, mind-body and sensory art therapies are particularly prominent in the material. Various aspects of pain, mental health and gynaecology are recurrent health issues. In total, 31.5% of the publications are classified as clinical trials. The organisations referenced most frequently in the material are Karolinska Institutet and UiT Tromsö and it is clear the research is based at large universities and university hospitals. The research networks have relatively different profiles and collaborate with both Scandinavian and international organisations.

Integrative oncology from a bibliometric point of view.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to analyze the development of integrative oncology from a bibliometric point of view. The publication and citation patterns of publications are analyzed and their contents mapped. DESIGN: This study is based on bibliometric methods. The data sets consist of 7 025 respectively 4 990 publications over the time period 1966-2016, shown in PubMed and Web of Science. RESULTS: The expansion of the numbers of these publications took place in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Research is dominated by authors located in the USA, China and Germany who are working at well-established research universities and university hospitals. The clinical share of publications is relatively small, and few studies are classified according to clinical phase. Content analysis revealed that much of the clinical research is based on surveys, and that content reflects the intersection of complementary therapies and cancer research. The latter aspect is less obvious in pre-clinical research. The most frequent journals in the material show a focus on complementary and alternative therapies or on integrative oncology, although journals focused on oncology or general/internal medicine were well-represented in the material as a whole. The most-cited publications were review articles and surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Integrative oncology has been established as a small, but distinct, research domain. There are several signs of specialization in integrative oncology, but also in its integration into general medical and oncological research.

"I Could Feel It!": A Qualitative Study on How Users of Complementary Medicine Experience and Form Knowledge About Treatments.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) experience various forms of treatments, form knowledge about them, and understand the boundaries between CAM and conventional health care. Method: Semistructured qualitative interviews, with 10 CAM users in Sweden, analyzed with qualitative content analysis and quantitative network analysis, and subsequent network visualizations. Findings and Conclusion: The main findings stressed the importance to CAM users of bodies and physical experiences, both in experiencing and forming knowledge about treatments. Physical experience was often contrasted with theoretical understanding. Another key finding was that the CAM users seemed to set up different standards for conventional and public health care and CAM. Although scientific explanations were considered as generally important for legitimacy, and conventional health care was expected to be evidence based, they were less important to personal use and in the use of CAM. In these cases, firsthand experience of positive effects were decisive.