ArticleBMJ open2011
Factors influencing the inclusion of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in undergraduate medical education.
Article in BMJ open, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Views of healthcare professionals on complementary and alternative medicine use by patients with diabetes: a qualitative study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- Teaching complementary and alternative medicine in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review.International journal of medical education · 2021Article
- Integrative oncology: really the best of both worlds?Nature reviews. Cancer · 2014Article
- Complementary and alternative medicine education for medical profession: systematic review.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To investigate the views and practices of UK medical schools regarding the inclusion (or exclusion) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in undergraduate medical curricula. Design Survey (by email) of UK medical schools offering MBBS (or equivalent) degrees. Results The overall response rate was 58.1% (18/31). All respondents indicated that their curricula included CAM elements. However, the quantity of CAM within curricula varied widely between medical schools, as did the methods by which CAM education was delivered. General Medical Council requirements were the strongest factor influencing the inclusion of CAM, although medical student preferences were also important. Respondents were generally satisfied with the extent of CAM provision within their curricula, while a wide range of views on the appropriateness of CAM in the medical curriculum were held by faculty members. Conclusions It may be useful for the General Medical Council to clarify the extent to which CAM should be incorporated into the curriculum. Current CAM education appears to exist primarily as a means of educating future doctors on the modalities that their patients may use or request. However, some forms of pedagogy arguably risk students assimilating CAM advocacy in an uncritical fashion.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.