Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33726724›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2021

Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Norway: a cross-sectional survey with a modified Norwegian version of the international questionnaire to measure use of complementary and alternative medicine (I-CAM-QN).

Agnete Egilsdatter Kristoffersen, Sara A Quandt, Trine Stub

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genetic Authentication of the Medicinal PlantInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Agnete Egilsdatter KristoffersenDepartment of Community Medicine, National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway. agnete.kristoffersen@uit.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-0310
Sara A QuandtDepartment of Epidemiology and Prevention Division of Public Health Sciences Wake Forest School of Medicine Medical Center Boulevard Winston-Salem, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157-1063, USA.
Trine StubDepartment of Community Medicine, National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway.
UiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used worldwide as well as in Norway, where CAM is offered mainly outside the national health care service, mostly complementary to conventional treatment and fully paid for by the patients. With few exceptions, previous research has reported on frequency and associations of total CAM use in Norway rather than on single therapies and products. Therefore, in this present study we will map the use of CAM more precisely, including types of services, products, and self-help practices and further include reasons for use and helpfulness of the specific therapies used based on a modified Norwegian version of the I-CAM-Q (I-CAM-QN).

methodComputer assisted telephone interviews using I-CAM-QN were conducted with 2001 randomly selected Norwegians aged 16 and above using multistage sampling in January 2019 with age and sex quotas for each area. Weights based on sex, age, education, and region corrected for selection biases, so that results are broadly representative of the Norwegian population. Descriptive statistics were carried out using Pearson's Chi-square tests and t-tests to identify group differences.

resultCAM use was reported by 62.2% of the participants during the prior12 months. Most participants had used natural remedies (47.4%), followed by self-help practices (29.1%) and therapies received from CAM providers (14.7%). Few of the participants had received CAM therapies from physicians (1.2%). Women were generally more likely to use CAM than men, younger people more likely than older, and participants with lower university education and income more likely than participants without university education, with higher university education and higher income. Mean number of visits per year to the different CAM providers ranged from 3.57 times to herbalists to 6.77 times to healers. Most of the participants found their use of CAM helpful.

conclusionThis study confirms that CAM is used by a considerable segment of the Norwegian population. We suspect that the number of participants reporting CAM use is greater when specific therapies are listed in the questionnaire as a reminder (as in the I-CAM-QN) compared to more general questions about CAM use. The CAM modalities used are mainly received from CAM providers operating outside public health care or administered by the participants themselves.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultComplementary TherapiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwaySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33726724
PMCPMC7962303
OpenAlexW3138217867

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.