ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2023
Use of complementary and integrative health in Finland: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Sweden: a cross-sectional survey.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Varieties of silence - a mixed-methods study exploring reasons and justifications for nondisclosure of the use of complementary therapies to physicians in Finland.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- Use and acceptance of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine in Germany-an online representative cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation based studies have shown large differences in the estimated prevalence of complementary and integrative health (CIH) usage between studies. This is in part due to there being no golden standard definition for CIH. In Finland, an updated and internationally comparable study on the prevalence of CIH usage is needed. In the present study, a modified Finnish version of the International Questionnaire to Measure Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (I-CAM-QFI) was utilised to examine prevalence of use of different CIH modalities and their experienced helpfulness in the general Finnish population.
methodsRespondents aged 16 and above were invited to take part in this descriptive cross-sectional study through an online panel in December 2022. The usage of CIH and the experienced helpfulness were calculated with SPSS (v28) as the proportion of users per each modality. The data were weighted based on gender, age and place of residence.
resultsA total of 3244 respondents completed the survey. CIH was used by 51.1% (95%CI: 49.4-52.8) of the respondents in the 12 months prior to the survey. Self-help practices were the most used category of CIH (28.8%; 95%CI: 27.3-30.4). The prevalence of usage of CIH natural remedies excluding vitamins and minerals was 27.0% (95%CI: 25.5-28.6). CIH providers were visited by 20.4% of the respondents (95%CI: 19.0-21.8). Getting help for a long-term illness or improvement of well-being were often mentioned as the most important reason for the use of different CIH modalities. CIH was generally used more by women compared to men. The large majority found the modalities they used helpful.
conclusionsThe results increase current understanding on CIH usage in Finland. As the majority of users experience CIH as helpful, there is a need to study CIH in the context of public health policies. The estimates of CIH usage are highly dependent on what is considered as CIH, and this should be paid attention to in future studies.
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.