Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36451723›Full record

SynthesisThe Pan African medical journal2022

Perception of integrating complementary and alternative medicine practice in patient's treatment among the healthcare practitioners: a systematic review.

Azimatun Noor Aizuddin, Mohd 'Ammar Ihsan Ahmad Zamzuri, Juliana Mansor, Siti Rohani Nurumal, Sharifah Zawani Syed Ahmad Yunus, Mohamad Aznuddin Abd Razak, Mohd Nazrin Jamhari, Tong Seng Fah, Hazlina Mohd Miskam, Rozita Hod and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Pan African medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

11 authors.

Azimatun Noor AizuddinDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohd 'Ammar Ihsan Ahmad ZamzuriDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Juliana MansorDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Siti Rohani NurumalDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sharifah Zawani Syed Ahmad YunusDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohamad Aznuddin Abd RazakDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mohd Nazrin JamhariDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tong Seng FahDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Hazlina Mohd MiskamDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rozita HodDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Hanizah Mohd YusoffDepartment of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing trend in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage among the population with medical conditions. However, there is hesitancy for medical practitioners to integrate its application with the current treatment modality, despite governance by the authority. Hence, our objective is to systematically evaluate the healthcare perception towards integrating CAM in their practices. We systematically searched three large and renowned databases i.e., Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, regarding "Perception on Integrating CAM Usage in Patient's Treatment among Healthcare Practitioners" from 2016 until 2020. At least two independent reviewers comprehensively screened and extracted the data from the accepted articles. A total of 15 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis following a strict and rigorous assessment checked using MMAT 2018 checklist. The studies included providing the richness of information due to the qualitative nature of the study design. There were three main domains extracted i.e. knowledge, attitude, and perspective of the healthcare practitioner towards CAM integration. Limited knowledge of CAM among healthcare providers may be the possible main reason for non-supportive attitude and negative perspective on CAM. However, those who showed an inclination towards CAM were found to be more open and ready to learn about CAM if it provides benefits to the patients. There is a heterogeneity of perception towards CAM integration from healthcare providers' point of view. A proactive and systematic CAM literacy awareness program may help to improve their understanding and possibly gain more trust in its application.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHealth FacilitiesDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansPerceptionComplementary and alternative medicinehealthcare practitionerperception

Identifiers

PMID36451723
PMCPMC9674529

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.