"Then I went to a hospital abroad": acknowledging implications of stakeholders' differing risk understandings related to use of complementary and alternative medicine in European health care contexts.

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

2.9field-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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

A triangulated perspective for understanding CAM use in Lebanon: a qualitative study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anita SalamonsenRegional Centre for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare (RKBU North), Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway. anita.salamonsen@uit.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6036-8729

Solveig WiesenerThe National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway.

Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

UiT The Arctic University of Norway IN-1096130

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a rather novel issue within public healthcare and health policy-making. CAM use in Europe is widespread, patient-initiated, and patient-evaluated, and the regulation across countries has been evaluated as disharmonized. CAM users are left in an uncertain position, and patient safety may be threatened. How "risk" is understood by individuals in health policy-making and clinical encounters involving the use of CAM has not yet been much debated. The aim of this article is to explore and discuss the existence and possible consequences of differing risk understandings among stakeholders maneuvering in the complex landscape of CAM practice and CAM regulation contextualized by European public healthcare systems.

methodsQualitative data were derived from two studies on CAM in European healthcare contexts. Findings from the EU project CAMbrella on legislation and regulation of CAM were mixed with data from an interview study exploring risk understandings, communication, and decision-making among Scandinavian CAM users and their doctors. In a secondary content analysis, we constructed the case Sara as a typology to demonstrate important findings with regard to risk understandings and patient safety involving European citizens' use of CAM in differing contexts.

resultsBy combining and comparing individual and structural perspectives on risk and CAM use, we revealed underexplored gaps in risk understandings among individuals involved in European CAM regulation and legislation, and between CAM users and their medical doctors. This may cause health risks and uncertainties associated with CAM use and regulation. It may also negatively influence doctor-CAM user communication and CAM users' trust in and use of public healthcare.

conclusionAcknowledging implications of stakeholders' differing risk understandings related to CAM use and regulation may positively influence patient safety in European healthcare. Definitions of the concept of risk should include the factors uncertainty and subjectivity to grasp the full picture of possible risks associated with the use of CAM. To transform the findings of this study into practical settings, we introduce sets of questions relevant to operationalize the important question "What is risk?" in health policy-making, clinical encounters and risk research involving European patients' use of CAM.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyQuality of Health CareEuropeHumansPolicy MakingRiskComplementary and alternative medicineDecision makingDoctor-patient communicationHealth policy-makingPatient safetyPerson-centerednessQuality in health careRefusal of conventional treatmentRegulation, risk governance, Norway, EuropeRisk communicationRisk definitionsRisk ontologyRisk perceptionsRisk understandings: risk behaviorsTraditional and complementary medicine

Identifiers

PMID31039772

DOI10.1186/s12906-019-2499-3

PMCPMC6492320

OpenAlexW2946942176

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.