Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39227930›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2024

How does the role of complementary and alternative medicine in general practice differ between countries? Interviews with doctors who have worked both in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Klaus Linde, Robert Bayer, Jan Gehrmann, Bianca Jansky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Klaus LindeTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Clinical Medicine, Technical University Munich, Institute for General Practice and Health Services Research, Munich, Germany. klaus.linde@mri.tum.de.
Robert BayerTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Clinical Medicine, Technical University Munich, Institute for General Practice and Health Services Research, Munich, Germany.
Jan GehrmannTUM School of Medicine and Health, Department Clinical Medicine, Technical University Munich, Institute for General Practice and Health Services Research, Munich, Germany.
Bianca JanskyMedical Faculty, Institute for Ethics and History of Health in Society, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAvailable data suggest that general practitioners (GPs) in Germany use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities more frequently than GPs in many other countries. We investigated the country differences perceived by general practitioners who have worked in Germany and in one of four other European countries with regard to the role of complementary and alternative treatments in primary care.

methodsIn this qualitative study we conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 GPs who had worked both in Germany and Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or the United Kingdom (UK; n = 3 for each of the four countries). Participants were asked how they perceived and experienced country differences regarding health system, relevance of CAM modalities, the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and science, and how they handle so-called indeterminate situations. For the analysis, we followed a thematic analysis approach according to Braun and Clarke with focus on themes that cover CAM.

resultsParticipants unanimously reported that they perceived CAM to be more relevant in general practice in Germany compared to the other countries. We identified four overarching themes in relation to the perceived reasons for these differences. Firstly, physicians with experiences in countries with a strong EBM and science orientation (Netherlands, Norway and the UK) considered the deeply ingrained view in national healthcare systems and GP communities that CAM modalities are not evidence-based as the main reason for the lower use of CAM by GPs. Secondly, extensive training of communication skills was cited as a reason that reduced the need for CAM in the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. Thirdly, differences in patient expectations and demands were perceived as a factor contributing to greater utilisation of CAM by German GPs compared to the other countries. Finally, country-specific reimbursement mechanisms were considered as a factor influencing the role of CAM in general practice.

conclusionsThe study results point to major differences between countries with regard to the role of CAM in GP care. Differences in basic attitudes in the discipline of general practice, patient expectations and system conditions appear to play an important role here.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelComplementary TherapiesGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersQualitative ResearchAdultEuropeFemaleGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedComplementary and alternative medicineCountry comparisonGeneral practiceGermanyItalyNetherlandsNorwayQualitative studyUK

Identifiers

PMID39227930
PMCPMC11373194

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.