Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38050407›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2023

Traditional, complementary and integrative healthcare: global stakeholder perspective on WHO's current and future strategy.

Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Raj Kumar Manchanda, Iva Lloyd, Jon Wardle, Janka Szöke, Iracema Benevides, Natalia Sofia Aldana Martinez, Festus Tolo, Ton Nicolai, Cristal Skaling-Klopstock and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Regulatory and HTA framework for herbal medicines in Indonesia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

14 authors.

Tido von Schoen-AngererInternational Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations, Brussels, Belgium tido.von.schoenangerer@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3601-7480
Raj Kumar ManchandaHealth and Family Welfare Department, Government of Delhi, Directorate of Ayush, Delhi, India.
Iva LloydWorld Naturopathic Federation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jon WardleNational Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.
Janka SzökeInternational Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations, Brussels, Belgium.
Iracema BenevidesRedePICS Brasil, Brazilian Network of Integrative and Complementary Practices in Healthcare, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Natalia Sofia Aldana MartinezTraditional Complementary and Integrative Medicine Network for the Americas, Bogotá, Colombia.
Festus ToloKeny Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ton NicolaiEUROCAM, Brussels, Belgium.
Cristal Skaling-KlopstockEuropean Federation of Homeopathic Patients' Associations, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tabatha ParkerAcademy of Integrated Health and Medicine, La Jolla, California, USA.
Dwi Linna SuswardanyIndonesian Public Health Association, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Robbert van HaselenWorld Integrated Medicine Forum, London, UK.
Jianping LiuCenter for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the 'WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014-2023' is entering its final phase, reflection is warranted on progress and the focus for a new strategy. We used WHO documentation to analyse progress across the objectives of the current strategy, adding the role of traditional, complementary and integrative healthcare (TCIH) to address specific diseases as a dimension absent in the current strategy. Our analysis concludes on five areas. First, TCIH research is increasing but is not commensurate with TCIH use. TCIH research needs prioritisation and increased funding in national research policies and programmes. Second, WHO guidance for training and practice provides useful minimum standards but regulation of TCIH practitioners also need to reflect the different nature of formal and informal practices. Third, there has been progress in the regulation of herbal medicines but TCIH products of other origin still need addressing. A risk-based regulatory approach for the full-range of TCIH products seems appropriate and WHO should provide guidance in this regard. Fourth, the potential of TCIH to help address specific diseases is often overlooked. The development of disease strategies would benefit from considering the evidence and inclusion of TCIH practices, as appropriate. Fifth, inclusion of TCIH in national health policies differs between countries, with some integrating TCIH practices and others seeking to restrict them. We encourage a positive framework in all countries that enshrines the role of TCIH in the achievement of universal health coverage. Finally, we encourage seeking the input of stakeholders in the development of the new WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHealth PolicyHumansWorld Health OrganizationHealth policyHealth systemsPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID38050407
PMCPMC10693890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.