ReviewPatient preference and adherence2025
Preferences for Non-Pharmacological Traditional Chinese Medicine in Cancer Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-pharmacological therapies in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are gradually gaining popularity. However, there has been no systematic understanding about cancer patients' preferences regarding these treatments. Objective: This review aims to clarify cancer patients' preferences for these therapies and the factors influencing them through systematic integration of evidence. Methods: A systematic search was conducted among eight databases. The time period spanned from the inception of each database to April 7, 2025. The Mixed Methods Assessment Tool was employed to assess the quality of the studies that met inclusion criteria. The JBI Convergent Synthesis Method was used to transform the extracted quantitative data into qualitative data that was then synthesized with qualitative data. A socio-ecological model was applied to group factors that influence TCM choices. Results: A total of 27 studies were included in this review, consisting of 13 quantitative and 14 qualitative studies. The factors that might affect cancer patients' preferences in favor of TCM non-pharmacological therapies are multifaceted, covering every level that exists within the socio-ecological model, including the individual (belief and past experiences), interpersonal (professional recommendations and family), healthcare system (service accessibility and cost), society (cultural origins and resources), and governmental (insurance and standards). The PROSPERO registration was dated April 6, 2025 (Registration Number: CRD420251026914). Conclusion: Patients' preference for TCM non-pharmacological therapies is driven by cultural affinity and interpersonal care needs rather than objective clinical evidence. This reminds us that while respecting patient preferences is essential for achieving patient-centered care, we must also adhere to evidence-based science to ensure safety and effectiveness. Future research should prioritize non-pharmacological therapies other than acupuncture (eg, massage, qigong) to bridge the evidence gap regarding their safety and efficacy. One limitation of this review lies in the overemphasis on acupuncture among cited studies and the cultural homogeneity.
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.