ReviewGlobal advances in health and medicine2013
Evaluating the economics of complementary and integrative medicine.
Review in Global advances in health and medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic analysis of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: considerations raised by an expert panel.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2013Guideline
- Quality of life of women with breast cancer in a tertiary referral university hospital.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Evaluating the effect of a herb on the control of blood glucose and insulin-resistance in patients with advanced type 2 diabetes (a double-blind clinical trial).Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2020Article
- Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health Commentary to CMS; RE: National Coverage Analysis (NCA) Tracking Sheet for Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain (CAG-00452N).Global advances in health and medicine · 2019Article
- The glycaemic outcomes of Cinnamon, a review of the experimental evidence and clinical trials.Nutrition journal · 2015Review
- IMPACT--Integrative Medicine PrimAry Care Trial: protocol for a comparative effectiveness study of the clinical and cost outcomes of an integrative primary care clinic model.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2014Article
- Health coaching integration into primary care for the treatment of obesity.Global advances in health and medicine · 2013Article
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
Healthcare in the United States is expensive and becoming more so every year. Policy and decision makers increasingly need information on costs, as well as effectiveness and safety, in order to formulate health-care strategies that are both clinically effective and financially responsible. Many people believe the benefits of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) exceed its costs. Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the US population uses CIM and pays directly for that use.(1) (-) (4) The most recent estimates show that total US out-of-pocket expenditures for CIM were $34 billion-11% of all US out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures.(1) However, if CIM is to be considered in broader healthcare strategies, its economic impact must be determined. Theoretically, CIM seems a good candidate for cost-effectiveness, and even cost savings, because it avoids high technology, offers inexpensive and noninvasive remedies, encourages healthy lifestyle change, and focuses on the whole person, all of which may improve health beyond the targeted disease or condition. However, to many in the conventional health-care system, CIM is seen only as an "add on" expense. What must be demonstrated via economic evaluation are the healthcare costs that can be avoided through the use of CIM. CIM offers the potential for several avenues of cost reduction. The first is as a direct replacement for the usual conventional therapy for a condition. The second is in terms of lower future healthcare utilization both in general (through treating the whole person) and for the targeted disease or condition. A third avenue to cost reduction is through reducing productivity loss for employers. A reduction in costs to employers does not directly reduce healthcare costs (unless the employer is itself a health-care facility); however, both are costs to society. Productivity losses can be reduced through improved employee health, and potentially through the improved employee well-being and empowerment offered by CIM.
Indexed as
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.