Observational studyJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2019
Employing Evidence in Evaluating Complementary Therapies: Findings from an Ethnography of Integrative Pain Management at a Large Urban Pediatric Hospital.
Observational study in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-ethnography of how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience and understand their condition, pain services, and treatments.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- The engagement of psychology with complementary medicine: A critical integrative review.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Article
- Implementing an inpatient integrative medicine consult service for children with pain: A qualitative analysis.Complementary therapies in medicine · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of resource utilization in integrative anthroposophic and all German pediatric inpatient departments.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Development of Key Performance Indicators for Capturing Impact of Pharmaceutical Care in Palestinian Integrative Healthcare Facilities: A Delphi Consensus Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Quality Indicators of Pharmaceutical Care in Palestinian Integrative Healthcare Facilities: Findings of a Qualitative Study among Stakeholders.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Quality Indicators of Pharmaceutical Care for Integrative Healthcare: A Scoping Review of Indicators Developed Using the Delphi Technique.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Do patients of integrative anthroposophic pediatric inpatient departments differ? Comparative analysis to all pediatric inpatients in Germany considering demographic and clinical characteristics.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) shows positive clinical benefit with minimal side effects, yet, challenges to effective integration of CIM providers in biomedical health care settings remain. This study aimed to better understand the role evidence played in the process of integration of complementary therapies into a large urban pediatric hospital from the perspective of patients, caregivers, providers, and administrators through applied medical ethnography.
methodsAn ethnography was conducted over the course of 6 months in a large urban pediatric hospital in the Southern United States. At the time, the hospital was piloting an integrative medicine (IM) pain consult service. Purposive sampling was used to select providers, patients, administrators, and caregivers to follow as they engaged with both the preexisting pain service and pilot IM pain services. Field observation and interviews were conducted with 34 participants. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze field notes, interview transcripts, and documents collected.
findingsAnalysis of the data revealed five themes regarding the role of evidence in the process of integration: Anecdotal Evidence and Personal Experience Effecting CIM Use, Open to Trying Whatever Works, Resistance to the Unfamiliar, Patients and Parents Trusting Doctors as Experts, and Importance of Scientific Evidence to Biomedicine. All themes address the role of evidence in relationship to acceptance of complementary therapies and correspond with three thought processes: critical thinking, relying on others for evidence, and reactionary thinking.
conclusionBoth scientific and anecdotal evidence informed CIM use in this context. Biomedical environments seeking to integrate CIM into pain treatment regimens will need to engage all relevant stakeholders in building education, clinical training, and research programs that are critically informed about the context and evidence for 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.