ArticleIntegrative medicine research2025
Patient Experiences of Integrative health CarE [PEICE]: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Practitioner Experiences of Integrative health CarE [PEICE]: A qualitative descriptive study.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although consumer demand and practitioner interest in integrative health care (IHC) have amplified over the past few decades, the patient experience of IHC still remains poorly understood. This study aimed to explore patient's experiences of receiving care within an IHC setting in Australia. Methods: Adults that had accessed an IHC setting within the past 12 months were invited to participate in a national, cross-sectional study. Individuals meeting the inclusion criteria were asked to complete the 57-item Integrative Healthcare Experience Tool (iHEET), online. Results: A total of 327 participants completed the iHEET (82.3 % female; 92.9 % aged 30 years or older). Participants reported a generally favourable experience of IHC, as indicated by an overall IHC experience score of 4.19 ± 0.90 (mean ± SD). Mean experience subscores were high for 8 of the 12 IHC experience domains (i.e. respectful, personalised, patient-centred, holistic, interdisciplinary, evidence-based, communicative, wellness-focussed), and moderate for 4 of the 12 domains (i.e. non-hierarchical, collaborative, coordinated, accessible). Conclusion: The findings of this novel study suggest IHC practice in Australia closely aligns with the philosophy and framework of IHC, and is mostly congruent with what patients want from an IHC service. Notwithstanding, there are several areas where IHC services could improve in order to optimise the patient experience. These areas include providing care that is more visibly collaborative and coordinated, and enabling equitable access to services for diverse patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.