ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Internet health information-seeking behavior and the use of traditional and complementary medicine: the role of online engagement and perceived information usefulness and reliability.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Health Literacy and Oral Health Behaviors Among Dental Medicine Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Structural Inequalities in Online Health Information Seeking: Cross-National Multilevel Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Study on the usage behavior of incidentally encountered pet health information among pet owners in the mobile media environment.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing a large cross-national dataset (N ≈ 23,000), this study investigates the relationship between several aspects of online health information-seeking and the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), as well as the belief that TCIM is better than conventional medicine in Western societies. It also examines how perceptions of the internet as a valuable tool to guide health decisions and perceived reliability of online information relate to TCIM use and beliefs about its superiority.
methodsOrdinal logistic regression models were used to assess the association between online health information-seeking behavior, perceived usefulness, and reliability of online health information, and two outcomes: TCIM use and belief in TCIM superiority over conventional medicine. Analyses were based on data from the 2021 ISSP module on Health and Healthcare, restricted to Western countries.
resultsFindings reveal a significant, graded association between more frequent online health information-seeking and both higher TCIM use and stronger belief that TCIM is better than conventional medicine. Those who perceived the internet as helpful in verifying doctors' advice or evaluating symptoms also had significantly higher odds of TCIM use and belief in its superiority. Notably, respondents expressing uncertainty about distinguishing reliable online health information showed the highest odds of TCIM use and belief in its superiority. Those agreeing it was difficult also had elevated odds, though less pronounced.
conclusionsThis study reveals that online health information-seeking is significantly linked to TCIM adoption and belief in its superiority over conventional medicine, including among individuals who express uncertainty about the reliability of online information. We suggest that the profiles of internet-engaged complementary medicine users are not uniform and may consist of both astute seekers who make an independently informed choice to use TCIM, as well as vulnerable users, potentially overwhelmed by misinformation. This study highlights the need to integrate TCIM into institutional healthcare frameworks, develop legal standards for TCIM use, promote digital health literacy, and improve doctor-patient communication.
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.