Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28124123›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Comparison of integrative medicine centers in the USA and Germany: a mixed method study.

EunJin Lim, Janette L Vardy, ByeongSang Oh, Haryana M Dhillon

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Convergent priorities and tensions: a qualitative study of the integration of complementary and alternative therapies with conventional cancer treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

EunJin LimConcord Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Janette L VardyConcord Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
ByeongSang OhNorthern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, St. Leonard's, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Haryana M DhillonCeMPED, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, NSW, Australia. Haryana.dhillon@sydney.edu.au.
University of Sydney · AUConcord Repatriation General Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntegrative medicine (IM) has received increasing attention since the 1990s, but few studies have explored the key factors of the IM model in health care. This study aimed to describe the IM model in leading centers operating in the USA and Germany.

methodsA 28-item structured survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted in six centers providing integrative medicine in the USA and Germany, and were analyzed using a convergent mixed-method approach.

resultsThe elements in common across all six centers were the following: (1) involvement of general physicians (GP) in delivering complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) services; (2) requirement for GP or medical referral or recommendation to CAM services; (3) involvement of an integrative physician (IP) as a "gatekeeper"; (4) focus on research, education, and clinical practice; and (5) ongoing academic activities. The key elements differentiating the two countries were the following: (1) level of requirements for GP referral to CAM services; (2) differences in IM service delivery, including treatment modalities used; (3) accessibility of CAM services to patients; (4) interaction between team members and patients; (5) perception of CAM/IM; and (6) perception of patient-centered care. Themes underpinning these elements are the following: cultural aspects in conceptualizing IM health care; communication within IM programs; and resource availability for delivering IM services, which impacts patient engagement and team collaboration in the IM framework.

conclusionsDelivering IM health care requires a model of care that encourages interaction between all stakeholders. Developing a comprehensive conceptual framework to support IM practice is required to facilitate efficient and safe patient care.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleGermanyHumansIntegrative MedicineMaleUnited StatesComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM)Healthcare systemsIntegrative medicineModel of care

Identifiers

PMID28124123
OpenAlexW2581173165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.