Prevalence of Complementary Medicine Use in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the global prevalence of complementary medicine (CM) use among children and adolescents. METHOD: Seven databases and the reference lists of included studies were searched for pertinent observational studies. Studies were limited to those published in English from July 1, 2013. Included studies were appraised using the JBI checklist for prevalence studies. RESULTS: Twenty studies were eligible for inclusion (385,527 participants). Most studies were assessed as having low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed a 23.0% (95% confidence interval, 0.226-0.234; 17 studies) short-term (≤ 12 month) prevalence and a 77.7% (95% confidence interval, 0.760-0.794; six studies) lifetime prevalence of CM use in children and adolescents. Differences in CM use were evident across countries and regions. DISCUSSION: The findings of this review indicate that the use of CM in children and adolescents is high and widespread and may be increasing.

Evidence implementation in naturopathy: A cross-sectional study of Australian naturopaths.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence implementation refers to the application of appropriate enabling strategies to improve clinician engagement with the best available evidence. To date, little attention has been paid to evidence implementation in disciplines such as naturopathy. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in Australian naturopathic practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was open to all Australian naturopaths who had internet access and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between March and July 2020. RESULTS: The survey was completed in full by 174 naturopaths (87.4% female; 31.6% aged 40-59 years). While participant attitudes were predominantly favourable of evidence implementation, engagement in evidence implementation activities was reported at a low to moderate level. Factors impacting participant engagement in such activities included a lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, lack of time, and a moderate to moderately-high level of self-reported skill in evidence implementation. Enablers of evidence implementation were access to the internet, free online databases, full-text journal articles, and online education materials. CONCLUSION: This study has provided valuable insights into the level of, and factors impacting evidence implementation among Australian naturopaths. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural and cognitive. This suggests that the obstacles to evidence implementation in naturopathy are most likely surmountable with the right means and concerted effort.

Mindfulness and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: An Umbrella Review.

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are a leading cause of disability globally, affecting up to one in three people. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) have become a popular treatment for CMSP. The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesise the best available research evidence for the effectiveness of MBI for adults with CMSP. Methods: Eight databases were searched from inception to 30th June 2021 for systematic reviews that examined the use of MBI in CMSP (pain experienced >3 months) in adult populations. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality using The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). Outcomes examined were pain, sleep quality, depression, quality of life, physical functioning, and mindfulness. Furthermore, definitions of mindfulness, and intervention parameters (mindfulness practices used, length, frequency of sessions, duration) were also reported. Results: Nineteen systematic reviews (n = 1 rated high quality, n = 1 moderate quality, n = 2 low quality and n = 15 critically low quality) examining 194 primary studies met the review criteria. Although some promising evidence was identified for the use of MBI in CMSP, the general low quality and widespread heterogeneity of included SRs and made it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion. Differences in results and outcomes amongst systematic reviews that, in many cases, had a high overlap of included RCTs, suggests fundamental differences in critical design elements that make data difficult to compare. Conclusion: This umbrella review found mixed results on the effectiveness of MBI for the management of CMSP across a range of outcomes (pain, sleep quality, depression, quality of life, physical functioning, mindfulness). Definitions of MBI varied as did parameters, which may have contributed to these mixed results. More rigorous research with stringent MBI protocols is required.

The effectiveness of reflexology on mental health in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The current body of research examining the effectiveness of reflexology in patients with cancer have predominantly focused on managing physical symptoms and treatment side effects. This review aimed to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of reflexology on mental health outcomes in people with cancer. METHODS: RCTs published in English and measuring stress, anxiety, depression or quality of life (QoL) were included. Eligible RCTs were identified through search of MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OTseeker, PEDro (18 June 2021) and Google and Google Scholar (21 June 2021). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. The certainty of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (1356 adult participants) were included. Evidence for stress and anxiety (primary outcomes), as well as depression and QoL (secondary outcomes), were mixed and conflicting. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low. CONCLUSION: An unequivocal recommendation supporting reflexology cannot be made. Greater utilisation of well-established reporting guidelines, together with increased investment in well-designed, high-quality clinical research are required.

Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review.

Background: Despite the push for complementary medicine (CM) practitioners to engage in evidence implementation, and arguments in support of evidence-based practice (EBP), uptake of EBP amongst most CM professions remains low. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence examining the barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM. Methods: Any primary study examining enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in CM were eligible for inclusion. Eight databases and search engines were searched for eligible studies. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and authors of included studies were contacted to identify current or unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria. Results: Thirty-nine published and unpublished studies were included in this review. The seven published qualitative studies and 25 published quantitative studies were rated as moderate to high quality. Fifty-two distinct barriers and 62 discrete enablers were identified. Reported barriers were predominantly structural (e.g. limited availability of time and clinical evidence) and cognitive (e.g. skills deficits), with relatively fewer studies reporting cultural (e.g. lack of industry support) or attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of interest in, or relevance to CM). Enablers of evidence implementation largely focussed on improving access to bibliographic databases and evidence reviews, supporting skills acquisition, and cultivating leadership and interprofessional/interagency collaboration. Conclusion: The findings of this review highlight the diverse barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM that span multiple dimensions. The interplay between these various factors highlights the complexity of evidence implementation, and the need for a targeted multistakeholder, multidimensional solution to optimise evidence-based practice in CM.

An exploration of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand: A qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies examining complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) stakeholder engagement with evidence-based practice have relied on quantitative research methods, which often fail to capture the nuances of this phenomena. Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to explore the experiences of CAM stakeholders regarding the barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research. METHODS: This research was guided by a qualitative descriptive framework. CAM practitioners and researchers of multiple CAM disciplines from across Australia and New Zealand were invited to share their personal perspectives of the study phenomena. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Rigour strategies were applied to ensure the credibility of results. The transcript was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: CAM stakeholders identified an array of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research within their disciplines. The barriers and enablers that emerged were found to be inter-connected with two similar constructs: capacity and culture. Captured within the construct of capacity were five themes-lack of resources, inadequate governance/leadership, lack of competency, bias directed from outside and within CAM, and lack of time for research. Within the construct of culture were two themes-intrinsic perceptions in CAM, and lack of communication within and outside CAM. CONCLUSIONS: Promoting evidence-based practice and engaging with research in CAM continues to face challenges. This study, for the first time, has highlighted the multitude of interlinked barriers that confront CAM stakeholders when engaging with research. These findings highlight the need for a concerted and targeted approach to tackle these challenges.

Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably and along with it, scrutiny regarding its evidence base. While this is to be expected, and is in line with other health disciplines, research in CAM is confronted by numerous obstacles. This scoping review aims to identify and report the strategies implemented to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. METHODS: The scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, JBI and the grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened the records, following which data extraction was completed for the included studies. Descriptive synthesis was used to summarise the data. RESULTS: Of the 7945 records identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the oBSTACLES instrument as a framework, the included studies reported diverse strategies to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. All included studies reported the use of educational strategies and collaborative initiatives with CAM stakeholders, including targeted funding, to address a range of barriers. CONCLUSIONS: While the importance of addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM has been recognised, to date, much of the focus has been limited to initiatives originating from a handful of jurisdictions, for a small group of CAM disciplines, and addressing few barriers. Myriad barriers continue to persist, which will require concerted effort and collaboration across a range of CAM stakeholders and across multiple sectors. Further research can contribute to the evidence base on how best to address these barriers to promote the conduct and application of research in CAM.

Barriers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine professions in Australia and New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing international popularity and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the uptake of evidence-based practice (EBP) in CAM has been slow. This cross-sectional survey aimed to further our understanding of the factors impacting EBP uptake in CAM. METHODS: The 32-item oBSTACLES instrument was administered online using the SurveyMonkey™platform. The survey evaluated barriers to both the conduct and application of research among CAM practitioners and researchers, from multiple CAM disciplines across Australia and New Zealand. Participants were recruited via practice-based research networks, professional associations, CAM educational institutions, CAM research centres, pertinent product manufacturers and social media platforms. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty-two CAM stakeholders responded to the survey. Barrier items were divided into two interlinked constructs, "capacity" and "culture". Capacity related to issues regarding access, competency, bias, incentives, and time, whereas culture related to values and complex systems. Under capacity, the greatest proportion of participants (>70 %) agreed that access was a barrier to the conduct and application of research, including lack of funding, institutional support, research training and collaborations. In terms of culture, the majority of participants (>60 %) agreed that values were a barrier to research conduct and application, including limited undergraduate research opportunities and diverse views of evidence. CONCLUSION: Findings from this research suggest a multitude of barriers negatively impact the conduct and application of research in CAM. Insights gained from this research will be instrumental in developing actionable strategies aimed at mitigating the impact of these barriers to improve research engagement in CAM.

The development of a survey instrument to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: As Complementary and Alternative medicine (CAM) grows in popularity, there is overt recognition for research evidence to inform clinical practice. While various strategies have been trialed to overcome the barriers to such progress, it is important to first understand the extent to which these barriers impact the conduct and application of CAM research. This study aimed to garner consensus and agreement among CAM researchers and practitioners in refining and validating a preliminary survey instrument for measuring these barriers. METHODS: A three-round Delphi study was undertaken with 22 international experts of CAM research and practice. Round one gathered consensus on 30 statements listing barriers to the application and conduct of CAM research. Only rounds two and three sought consensus on revised statements. Any statement demonstrating ≥ 70% agreement on a four-point Likert scale was determined to have reached consensus. RESULTS: Consensus and agreement was achieved for all 30 statements listing the barriers to the application and conduct of research in CAM. Additional commentary by the Delphi participants directed whether a statement had to be split into two parts or reworded. This process resulted in the generation of the "BarrierS To the Application and Conduct of rEsearch" (oBSTACLES) instrument. CONCLUSION: This study, the first of its kind on this topic, identified consensus and agreement on a series of evidence-informed statements to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. The uniqueness of the oBSTACLES instrument is its ability to measure barriers across the evidence-based continuum.

Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably over the past few decades. This has been accompanied by increasing public pressure for CAM to be evidence-based. Notwithstanding, the conduct and application of research in CAM faces a number of obstacles. No systematic review has mapped these barriers to date. Therefore, this systematic literature review aimed to explore, identify and map the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. METHODS: Systematic searching of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, The Cochrane library, Google scholar and Google was conducted between February and June 2016 for pertinent publications. Pearling (secondary searching) of retrieved publications was also undertaken. Literature published only in English were included; however, no year limit was placed for searching. Two critical appraisal tools were used to critically appraise descriptive studies and opinion publications. RESULTS: A total of 21 eligible publications were included in this review; this comprised of eight primary research articles and thirteen opinion publications. A critical appraisal process found two categories of good quality publications while recognising their limitations in terms of descriptive and opinion publications. The synthesised data from the selected publications about the barriers to the conduct and application of research within CAM were captured within two broad components, namely capacity and culture. Capacity encompassed elements such as access, competency, bias, incentives and time. Encompassed within culture were elements relating to the values and complex system of CAM. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple barriers exist for the conduct and application of research in CAM. Given the growing popularity of these therapies, it is essential that the evidence base underpinning CAM also continues to expand. Without overt recognition of these barriers, enabling strategies cannot be applied. By addressing these barriers, CAM professions will be able to develop a critical mass and a well-coordinated research effort to assist the integration of evidence - based practice in CAM.