Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30723800›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2018

Complementary medicine use, views, and experiences: a national survey in England.

Debbie Sharp, Ava Lorenc, Richard Morris, Gene Feder, Paul Little, Sandra Hollinghurst, Stewart W Mercer, Hugh MacPherson

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Is complementary medicine and diagnosis associated among spinal patients in the secondary sector: a cross-sectional study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Herbal supplements in the print media: communicating benefits and risks.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019
    Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Debbie SharpProfessor of Primary Care, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ava LorencSenior Research Associate, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard MorrisProfessor in Medical Statistics, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Gene FederProfessor of Primary Care, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul LittleProfessor of Primary Care Research, Primary Medical Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Sandra HollinghurstSenior Lecturer in Health Economics, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stewart W MercerChair in Primary Care Research, Primary Care and General Practice, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Hugh MacPhersonProfessor of Acupuncture Research, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Primary Health Care · QAUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2005,12% of the English population visited a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioner.

aimTo obtain up-to-date general population figures for practitioner-led CAM use in England, and to discover people's views and experiences regarding access. DESIGN &

settingA face-to-face questionnaire survey was commissioned. A nationally representative adult quota sample (aged ≥15 years) was used.

methodTen questions were included within Ipsos MORI's weekly population-based survey. The questions explored 12-month practitioner-led CAM use, reasons for non-use, views on NHS-provided CAM, and willingness to pay.

resultsOf 4862 adults surveyed, 766 (16%) had seen a CAM practitioner. People most commonly visited CAM practitioners for manual therapies (massage, osteopathy, chiropractic) and acupuncture, as well as yoga, pilates, reflexology, and mindfulness or meditation. Women, people with higher socioeconomic status (SES) and those in south England were more likely to access CAM. Musculoskeletal conditions (mainly back pain) accounted for 68% of use, and mental health 12%. Most was through self-referral (70%) and self-financing. GPs (17%) or NHS professionals (4%) referred and/or recommended CAM to users. These CAM users were more often unemployed, with lower income and social grade, and receiving NHS-funded CAM. Responders were willing to pay varying amounts for CAM; 22% would not pay anything. Almost two in five responders felt NHS funding and GP referral and/or endorsement would increase their CAM use.

conclusionCAM use in England is common for musculoskeletal and mental health problems, but varies by sex, geography, and SES. It is mainly self-referred and self-financed; some is GP-endorsed and/or referred, especially for individuals of lower SES. Researchers, patients, and commissioners should collaborate to research the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAM and consider its availability on the NHS.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesGeneral PracticeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30723800
PMCPMC6348322
OpenAlexW2901901121

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.