ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020
Patients' and clinicians' expectations on integrative medicine Services for Diabetes: a focus group study.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Yushida: an IoT-based smart injection system for long-term management of chronic diseases.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Regulatory frameworks and evidence requirements for traditional, complementary and integrative medicines.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Article
- Needs Assessment and the Identification of Palliative Care Dimensions of the Essential Service Package for the Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease: A Mixed Exploratory Study.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2023Article
- Chinese herbal medicine treatment based on subgroup differentiation as adjunct therapy for Parkinson's disease: study protocol of a pilot add-on, randomised, controlled, pragmatic clinical trial.Chinese medicine · 2022Article
- Potential Therapeutic Targets of Rehmannia Formulations on Diabetic Nephropathy: A Comparative Network Pharmacology Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Article
- PRAgmatic Clinical Trial Design of Integrative MediCinE (PRACTICE): A Focus Group Series and Systematic Review on Trials of Diabetes and Kidney Disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- SYmptom-Based STratification of DiabEtes Mellitus by Renal Function Decline (SYSTEM): A Retrospective Cohort Study and Modeling Assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDifference of perspective between patients and physicians over integrative medicine (IM) research and service provision remains unclear despite significant use worldwide. We observed an exceptionally low utilisation of IM and potential underreporting in diabetes. We aimed to explore the barriers and recommendations regarding service delivery and research of IM service among diabetes patients and physicians.
methodsA 10-group, 50-participant semi-structured focus group interview series was conducted. Twenty-one patients with diverse severity of disease, comorbidities and education levels; and 29 physicians (14 conventional medicine (ConM) and 15 Chinese medicine (CM)) with diverse clinical experience, academic background and affiliation were purposively sampled from private and public clinics. Their perspectives were qualitatively analysed by constant comparative method.
resultsSeven subthemes regarding barriers towards IM service were identified including finance, service access, advice from medical professionals, uncertainty of service quality, uncertainty of CM effect, difficulty in understanding CM epistemology and access to medical records. Patients underreported the use of CM due to the concern over neutrality of medical advice among physicians. Inconvenience of service access, frequent follow-up, use of decoction and long-term financial burden were identified as key obstacles among patients. Regarding research design, ConM physicians emphasised standardisation and reproducibility while CM physicians emphasised personalisation. Some CM-related outcome measurements were suggested as non-communicable. Both physicians acknowledged the discordance in epistemology should be addressed by pragmatic approach.
conclusionKey obstacles of CAM clinical utilisation are different between patients. Further assessment on IM should be pragmatic to balance between standardisation, reproducibility and real-world practice. Evidence-based IM programs and research should merge with existing infrastructure.
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.