ArticleJournal of pharmacopuncture2021
Attitude of Medical Students and Doctors towards Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medicine: A Single-Center, Questionnaire-Based Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacopuncture, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Iranian Medical Students Toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Health science reports · 2025Article
- A pre- and post-course survey of an elective Chinese medicine curriculum among junior Western medical students in Taiwan.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Attitudes and use of complementary and alternative medicine: a cross-sectional comparison between medical and non-medical students.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- The engagement of psychology with complementary medicine: A critical integrative review.Heliyon · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur study aimed to determine the attitudes of second- and final-year medical students and doctors (teaching faculty) of modern medicine towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) using the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Attitude Questionnaire (CAIMAQ).
methodsWe invited 248 second-year medical students, 245 final-year medical students, and 48 faculty members to participate in the study. The CAIMAQ consists of 30 items, divided into five categories assessing various aspects of CAM, and scored using a 7-point Likert scale. The median scores obtained were compared between groups; a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 138 medical students and faculty responded and participated in the study, of which, 24 (17.4%) were faculty, 40 (29%) were final-year medical students and 74 (53.6%) were second-year medical students. The overall attitude towards the various CAM concepts and therapies was positive. In general, the faculty were significantly less likely to consider referring patients for CAIM treatments, integrating them with conventional medicine, referring patients to alternative healthcare providers, considering the use of subtle energy fields as an ethical form of treatment, or considering CAIM treatments to be less invasive and harmful compared with conventional medicine. There was no significant difference in the attitudes of second- and final-year students.
conclusionThe attitude of medical students and doctors towards CAM is positive, and although the medical faculty have reservations in recommending specific types of CAM therapies or integrating them with conventional care, building evidence for supporting CAM therapies in specific diseases is likely to increase its uptake among health care professionals.
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.