Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38545512›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Use and acceptance of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine in Germany-an online representative cross-sectional study.

Michael Jeitler, Miriam Ortiz, Benno Brinkhaus, Mike Sigl, Rasmus Hoffmann, Miriam Trübner, Andreas Michalsen, Manfred Wischnewsky, Christian S Kessler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

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

9 authors.

Michael JeitlerInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Miriam OrtizInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Benno BrinkhausInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Mike SiglInstitute for Cultural Studies, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Rasmus HoffmannInstitute for Sociology, Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Miriam TrübnerInstitute for Sociology, Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Andreas MichalsenInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Manfred WischnewskyFaculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Christian S KesslerInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Older representative surveys show that Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) is used by about 60% of the German population. However, no data exists for the current nationwide situation. The main aim of this cross-sectional study is to investigate the current use and acceptance of TCIM in Germany. Methods: This study is based on a representative sample of the German population aged 18-75 years. Participants were asked about the use and acceptance of TCIM. The survey was conducted online using Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) in 2022 by three renowned German market research institutes on behalf of and in close coordination with the working group. The data set was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: In total, 4,065 participants (52% female, 48% male, 0.4% diverse) responded completely (response rate: 21.5%). Among participants, 70% stated that they had used TCIM at some point in their lives, with 32% doing so in the last 12 months and 18% currently. The most common reason given (17%) was musculoskeletal pain. For their own health, 39% stated that TCIM is important. Traditional European Medicine was rated as very/mainly effective by 27% of participants and as partly effective by 44% (conventional medicine: 69% very/mainly effective, 19% partly effective). As a complementary treatment strategy to conventional medicine, 35% considered TCIM to be optimal ("Complementary Medicine"), 33% in combination with conventional medicine ("Integrative Medicine") and 5% without conventional medicine ("Alternative Medicine"). The majority of the participants were in favor of more research on TCIM and stated that the costs of TCIM services should be covered by health insurance companies (71% and 69%, respectively). Conclusion: These results from a representative online-population suggest that the use of TCIM in Germany remains at a high level. The nationwide relevance of TCIM should be given greater consideration in German health care policy making. TCIM should be systematically investigated using appropriate study designs and methods including high quality randomized clinical trials to investigate their effectiveness, efficacy, therapeutic safety and costs in the future.

Indexed as

alternative medicinecomplementary medicinecross-sectional studyintegrative medicineNaturheilkundeonline-representativetraditional European medicinetraditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID38545512
PMCPMC10965565

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.