Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119376›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025

Health information-seeking behavior among users of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM).

Miriam Trübner, Alexander Patzina, Judith Lehmann, Benno Brinkhaus, Christian S Kessler, Rasmus Hoffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Miriam TrübnerOtto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany. miriam.truebner@uni-bamberg.de.
Alexander PatzinaOtto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Judith LehmannOtto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, 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.
Christian S Kessler *Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Rasmus Hoffmann *Otto-Friedrich-University Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is widespread among the German population and driven by various motives, including both supplementing and avoiding treatments with conventional medicine. The aim of this article is to examine how these motives relate to different health information-seeking behaviors.

methodsThe study uses regression analysis based on data from a German online access panel, which explored the use and acceptance of TCIM in Germany in 2022. From this study, we use information on 1,696 individuals (aged 18-75 years) who vary in their motives for using TCIM (subjective statements on five-point Likert scales) and have used TCIM to treat health problems.

resultsOverall, TCIM is considered more a health-promoting measure than it is driven by aversion towards conventional medicine. Our analysis of information-seeking behavior for certain therapeutic procedures reveals that, as respondents' propensity to use TCIM as a health-promoting measure rises, they are more likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: 0.04, p = 0.004), personal advice (AME: 0.09, p = 0.000), and their social circle's experiences (AME: 0.08, p = 0.000). In contrast, respondents who use TCIM more due to aversion to conventional medicine are less likely to perceive themselves as being influenced by scientific studies (AME: -0.04, p = 0.004) and doctors (AME: -0.07, p = 0.000). When analyzing respondents' most important medical information source, our results reveal that the more individuals indicate using TCIM out of aversion, the more likely they are to consider (online) media outlets their most important medical resource (AME: 0.05, p = 0.000), while the likelihood of considering medical professionals most important decreases (AME -0.06, p = 0.000).

conclusionMotives behind TCIM use vary and correspond to differences in individuals' health information-seeking behavior. Beyond these motive-related differences, TCIM users value sources of health information other than their medical practitioners. This calls for an intensification of TCIM training among medical professionals to provide high-quality consultation and the creation of reputable online portals to ensure the provision of trustworthy information about TCIM.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesInformation Seeking BehaviorIntegrative MedicineAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotivationSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAlternative medicineComplementary medicineHealth information-seeking behaviorIntegrative medicineMedical adviceMedical informationTraditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID40119376
PMCPMC11927221

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.