Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676102›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2023

Perception, attitudes, knowledge of using complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients among healthcare professionals: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Bo-Young Youn, Jie-Won Cha, Sungsu Cho, So-Mi Jeong, Hyo-Jung Kim, Seong-Gyu Ko

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. 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
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Bo-Young YounDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7428-8997
Jie-Won ChaDepartment of Applied Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6647-0203
Sungsu ChoDepartment of Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0009-0001-8451-2825
So-Mi JeongDepartment of Clinical Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0009-0006-7436-6672
Hyo-Jung KimDepartment of Clinical Korean Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6747-4003
Seong-Gyu KoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2345-430X

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea 2020R1A5A2019413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the rapid increase in the prevalence of cancer worldwide, the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased among cancer patients. This review aimed to understand the perception, attitudes, and knowledge of healthcare professionals toward using CAM for cancer patients.

methodsA mixed-methods systematic review was undertaken in four databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies reporting perception, attitudes, and knowledge of healthcare professionals for using CAM for cancer patients were eligible. A mixed-methods convergent synthesis was carried out, and the findings were subjected to a GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence.

resultsForty-two studies were chosen. The majority of the studies were quantitative and had less than 100 participants. Most publications were from European countries, and oncology was the highest among the specialties. The review found the following themes: feasibility of having negative adverse effects, low expectations of using CAM among HCPs, potential positive effects of using CAM, specific CAM training may be helpful, no concrete regulations to promote CAM practice, and poor physician-patient communication.

conclusionsNurses had more positive views than other professions; oncologists were concerned regarding herb-drug interactions; integration of CAM into the healthcare system was favorable; HCPs felt the need to participate in specific CAM training; and HCPs agreed that CAM education should be provided more regularly. Future studies should explore the studies views of cancer patients and details of in-depth evidence of CAM in oncology settings.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelComplementary TherapiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelNeoplasmsHumansPerceptionattitudebeliefCAMcancercomplementary medicineperception

Identifiers

PMID37676102
PMCPMC10557909

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.