Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28494011›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Changes in the use practitioner-based complementary and alternative medicine over time in Canada: Cohort and period effects.

Mayilee Canizares, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Monique A M Gignac, Richard H Glazier, Elizabeth M Badley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Understanding CAM Use in Lebanon: Findings from a National Survey.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Mayilee CanizaresInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sheilah Hogg-JohnsonDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Monique A M GignacKrembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Richard H GlazierDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth M BadleyKrembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing. However the factors contributing to changes over time and to birth cohort differences in CAM use are not well understood.

settingWe used data from 10186 participants, who were aged 20-69 years at the first cycle of data collection in the longitudinal component of the Canadian National Population Health Survey (1994/95-2010/11). We examined chiropractic and other practitioner-based CAM use with a focus on five birth cohorts: pre-World War II (born 1925-1934); World War II (born 1935-1944); older baby boomers (born 1945-1954); younger baby boomers (born 1955-1964); and Gen Xers (born 1965-1974). The survey collected data every two years on predisposing (e.g., sex, education), enabling (e.g., income), behavior-related factors (e.g., obesity), need (e.g., chronic conditions), and use of conventional care (primary care and specialists).

resultsThe findings suggest that, at corresponding ages, more recent cohorts reported greater CAM (OR = 25.9, 95% CI: 20.0; 33.6 for Gen Xers vs. pre-World War) and chiropractic use than their predecessors (OR = 2.2, 95% CI: 1.7; 2.8 for Gen Xers vs. pre-World War). There was also a secular trend of increasing CAM use, but not chiropractic use, over time (period effect) across all ages. Factors associated with cohort differences were different for CAM and chiropractic use. Cohort differences in CAM use were partially related to a period effect of increasing CAM use over time across all ages while cohort differences in chiropractic use were related to the higher prevalence of chronic conditions among recent cohorts. The use of conventional care was positively related to greater CAM use (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.6; 2.0) and chiropractic use (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1; 1.4) but did not contribute to changes over time or to cohort differences in CAM and chiropractic use.

conclusionThe higher CAM use over time and in recent cohorts could reflect how recent generations are approaching their healthcare needs by expanding conventional care to include CAM therapies and practice for treatment and health promotion. The findings also underscore the importance of doctors discussing CAM use with their patients.

Indexed as

General PractitionersAdultAgedCanadaChiropracticCohort StudiesComplementary TherapiesHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28494011
PMCPMC5426710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.