Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228697›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020

Potential factors that influence usage of complementary and alternative medicine worldwide: a systematic review.

Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai, Helen Boardman, Dawn-Marie Walker

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 119 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
24.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

119 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 288 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Integrative oncology consultation and patient referral to complementary therapies: results from the prospective study THERAC.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  11. Stakeholder priorities for advancing integrative oncology across a pluralistic health system: a qualitative study from Singapore.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Metallo-herb complexes as emerging therapeutics: chemistry, synthesis approaches, and pharmacological insights.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mayuree TangkiatkumjaiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhonnayok, 26120, Thailand. mayureet@g.swu.ac.th.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9442-970X
Helen BoardmanDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Dawn-Marie WalkerSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Srinakharinwirot University · THUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine similarities and differences in the reasons for using or not using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) amongst general and condition-specific populations, and amongst populations in each region of the globe.

methodsA literature search was performed on Pubmed, ScienceDirect and EMBASE. KEYWORDS: 'herbal medicine' OR 'herbal and dietary supplement' OR 'complementary and alternative medicine' AND 'reason' OR 'attitude'. Quantitative or qualitative original articles in English, published between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed. Conference proceedings, pilot studies, protocols, letters, and reviews were excluded. Papers were appraised using valid tools and a 'risk of bias' assessment was also performed. Thematic analysis was conducted. Reasons were coded in each paper, then codes were grouped into categories. If several categories reported similar reasons, these were combined into a theme. Themes were then analysed using χ

results231 publications were included. Reasons for CAM use amongst general and condition-specific populations were similar. The top three reasons for CAM use were: (1) having an expectation of benefits of CAM (84% of publications), (2) dissatisfaction with conventional medicine (37%) and (3) the perceived safety of CAM (37%). Internal health locus of control as an influencing factor was more likely to be reported in Western populations, whereas the social networks was a common factor amongst Asian populations (p < 0.05). Affordability, easy access to CAM and tradition were significant factors amongst African populations (p < 0.05). Negative attitudes towards CAM and satisfaction with conventional medicine (CM) were the main reasons for non-use (p < 0.05).

conclusionsDissatisfaction with CM and positive attitudes toward CAM, motivate people to use CAM. In contrast, satisfaction with CM and negative attitudes towards CAM are the main reasons for non-use.

Indexed as

Global HealthHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeComplementary TherapiesHumansPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesComplementary and alternative medicineConventional medicineFactorNot useUse

Identifiers

PMID33228697
PMCPMC7686746
OpenAlexW3108945975

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.