ArticlePloS one2017
Healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Web-based online resources about adverse interactions or side effects associated with complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review, summarization and quality assessment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Pooled it
- Knowledge of Complementary Medicine and Therapies Among Family Physicians and the General Population in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Personal Use and Attitude toward Integrative Medicine and Nursing among Employees at a German University Hospital: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study.Complementary medicine research · 2025Article
- Clinician perspectives on nutritional impairment in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy in Thailand: A qualitative descriptive study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Exploring the gap: attitudes, knowledge, and training needs in complementary and integrative medicine among healthcare professionals at German university hospitals.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- A review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and health.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for Chronic Pain Management in the Community Pharmacy Setting: A Cross-Sectional Survey of the General Public's Knowledge and Perceptions.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior about Antimicrobial Use and Resistance among Medical, Nursing and Pharmacy Students in Jordan: A Cross Sectional Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reasons Office-Based Physicians in the United States Recommend Common Complementary Health Approaches to Patients: An Exploratory Study Using a National Survey.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2022Article
- Perceptions of homeopathy in supportive cancer care among oncologists and general practitioners in France.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Iranian healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross sectional study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- The Case of Billy Best: 25 Years Later.Pediatrics · 2021Article
- Article
- Findings from a three-round Delphi study: essential topics for interprofessional training on complementary and integrative medicine.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Health Professionals on the Implementation of Integrative and Complementary Practices at a University Pediatric Hospital in Brazil: A Qualitative Interview Study.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.
objectiveTo assess healthcare professionals' sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital. DESIGN AND
participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire. MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing healthcare professionals' opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM. KEY
resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals' opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses' and midwives' opinion compared to physicians' (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35-4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95-7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92-3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33-0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.
conclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.
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.