Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38052188›Full record

ArticleComplementary medicine research2024

Stakeholder Perceptions of Complementary and Integrative Medicines from People Living with Rare Diseases in Northern Ireland: A Mixed Methods Study.

Ashleen Laura Crowe, Katie Kerr, Helen McAneney, Julie McMullan, Gavin Duffy, Amy Jayne McKnight

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Complementary medicine research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashleen Laura CroweCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK, a.crowe@qub.ac.uk.
Katie KerrCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Helen McAneneyCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Julie McMullanCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Gavin DuffySchool of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Amy Jayne McKnightCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOnly 5% of rare diseases have an approved treatment available, therefore patients often utilise complementary and integrative medicines (CIMs) to help manage their condition. Limited high-quality evidence-based studies are available which support the effectiveness of CIM, as it is difficult to show that an outcome is a direct result of the CIM intervention and not due to bias. Patients and healthcare professionals must weigh up the evidence quality, safety, efficacy, practical logistics, and financial implications of utilising CIM for rare diseases. This study aimed to elucidate perspectives of stakeholders (individuals with rare diseases, carers, family members, CIM practitioners and healthcare professionals), on the usage of CIM for rare diseases across Northern Ireland.

methodsThis was a mixed methods study. An online survey was open from January to February 2019 (n = 29 responses). Themes identified from the survey were then discussed with stakeholders in a semi-structured discussion workshop in March 2019.

resultsA limited number of participants responded to the survey (n = 29). Some individuals with rare diseases reported CIM as effective in the management of their condition, in particular acupuncture, dietary supplements, herbal medicines, homoeopathy, hydrotherapy, kinesiology, mindfulness, pilates, reflexology, tai chi, and yoga. However, a number of respondents (n = 7) experienced a negative side effect from CIM. Workshop participants raised concerns over the lack of information available about CIM and rare disease. Both the survey and workshop identified inequality of access with participants reporting CIM to be expensive.

conclusionsMore information, high-quality research, and education about CIM are required for patients and healthcare professionals to help make informed decisions about the usage of CIM for rare diseases. Improved communication, information, and health and social care in general would help individuals be more confident and knowledgeable about therapeutic options in relation to their rare disease(s). <title>Einleitung</title>Nur für fünf Prozent der seltenen Erkrankungen existiert eine zugelassene Behandlung, weshalb Patienten häufig komplementäre und integrative Medizin (CIM) nutzen, um ihre Krankheit zu behandeln. Es liegen nur wenige qualitativ hochwertige evidenzbasierte Studien vor, die die Wirksamkeit von CIM stützen, da sich schwer nachweisen lässt, dass ein Behandlungsergebnis direkt durch die CIM-Intervention bedingt und nicht Folge einer Verzerrung ist. Patienten und Angehörige der Gesundheitsberufe müssen die Qualität der Evidenz, die Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit sowie praktische logistische Aspekte und die finanziellen Folgen der Anwendung von CIM bei seltenen Erkrankungen abwägen. Mit der vorliegenden Studie sollte die Perspektive der Betroffenen (Menschen mit seltenen Erkrankungen, Betreuungspersonen, Familienangehörige, CIM-Praktiker und Angehörige der Gesundheitsberufe) in Bezug auf die Anwendung von CIM bei seltenen Erkrankungen in Nordirland untersucht werden.<title>Methoden</title>Es handelte sich um eine Studie mit gemischten Methoden. Eine Online-Umfrage war von Januar bis Februar 2019 geöffnet (<italic>n</italic> = 29 Antworten). Die in der Umfrage ermittelten Themen wurden anschließend im März 2019 im Rahmen eines halbstrukturierten Diskussionsworkshops mit den Betroffenen erörtert.<title>Ergebnisse</title>Eine begrenzte Anzahl von Teilnehmern antwortete auf die Umfrage (<italic>n</italic> = 29). Einige Personen mit seltenen Erkrankungen gaben an, dass CIM bei der Behandlung ihrer Erkrankung wirksam war, insbesondere Akupunktur, Nahrungsergänzungsmittel, pflanzliche Arzneimittel, Homöopathie, Hydrotherapie, Kinesiologie, Achtsamkeit, Pilates, Reflexologie, Tai Chi und Yoga. Einige Befragte (<italic>n</italic> = 7) berichteten jedoch über negative Nebenwirkungen der CIM. Die Workshop-Teilnehmer äußerten Bedenken in Bezug auf den Mangel an Informationen über CIM und seltene Erkrankungen. Sowohl in der Umfrage als auch im Workshop zeigte sich eine Ungleichheit beim Zugang zu CIM und die Teilnehmer berichteten, dass CIM teuer sei.<title>Schlussfolgerungen</title>Patienten und Angehörige der Gesundheitsberufe benötigen mehr Informationen, qualitativ hochwertige Forschung und Aufklärung über CIM, um fundierte Entscheidungen über die Anwendung von CIM bei seltenen Erkrankungen treffen zu können. Eine bessere Kommunikation, Information sowie gesundheitliche und soziale Versorgung im Allgemeinen würden zu mehr Selbstvertrauen und Wissen der Betroffenen über die therapeutischen Möglichkeiten im Zusammenhang mit ihrer seltenen Erkrankung beitragen.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesIntegrative MedicineRare DiseasesStakeholder ParticipationAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorthern IrelandSurveys and QuestionnairesCIMCommunicationComplementary and integrative medicinesKommunikationKomplementäre und alternative MedizinKomplementäre und integrative MedizinRare diseaseSeltene Erkrankungen

Identifiers

PMID38052188
PMCPMC11057444
OpenAlexW4389329643

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.