ArticleFrontiers in sociology2025
Distinguishing complementary and alternative medicine: the role of religion, healthcare system satisfaction and country context.
Article in Frontiers in sociology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to distinguish between the usage of complementary medicine and alternative medicine often jointly referred to as CAM. Furthermore, the analysis focuses on the role of religion, healthcare system satisfaction and the country of residence. Subject and methods: The analysis uses data of the International Social Survey Programme 2021 "Health and Health Care II" (ISSP 2021) to estimate the prevalence of complementary medicine and alternative medicine. A nested logistic regression model was applied to distinguish between no medicine use, conventional medicine, complementary medicine and alternative medicine. Results: The findings indicate that complementary medicine is significantly more prevalent than alternative medicine, though substantial cross-country differences are observed. While religious affiliation alone does not show a significant relationship with CAM usage, individuals who attend religious services regularly are more likely to use CAM in a complementary manner, alongside conventional medicine. Individuals who are dissatisfied with the health care system also are more likely to use both complementary medicine and alternative medicine. Higher levels of education are negatively associated with the use of alternative medicine. Younger individuals are more likely to use CAM and specific alternative medicine, compared to older age groups. Being female is consistently associated with a higher chance of CAM usage overall. Discussion: Treating complementary and alternative medicine as distinct reveals different prevalence rates and influencing factors. Religion, satisfaction with the healthcare system, education, age, and gender play varying roles depending on whether CAM is used alongside or instead of conventional medicine. Cross-country differences point to cultural and health system influences. For public health, distinguishing between complementary and alternative use can support more targeted strategies to promote safe integration and reduce risks from substituting conventional treatment.
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.