ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Use of complementary and integrative medicine for mental disorders-a cross-sectional study in Germany.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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: Mental disorders pose a substantial global health burden. Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) is widely used; however, data on CIM use in mental disorders are limited. The aim was to investigate CIM prevalence, usage patterns, disclosure, and perceived benefits among individuals with mental disorders in Germany. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among adults with psychiatric disorders in Germany between June 2023 and August 2024. Participants were recruited through a nationwide anonymous online survey and on-site surveys in randomly selected outpatient psychiatric, psychosomatic, and psychotherapeutic settings in Berlin and Brandenburg. The 33-item questionnaire assessed lifetime and current CIM use, diagnostic and sociodemographic characteristics, physician disclosure, recommendation sources, and perceived effectiveness. Associations were analysed using logistic regression. Results: Seven hundred sixty-eight participants (mean age 43.2 years; 77.3% female) completed the questionnaire. Lifetime CIM use was 92.3, and 68.1% reported current use. The most commonly used approaches (lifetime use) were meditation (63.9%), yoga (60.8%), and dietary supplements (59.1%); positive experiences were highest for meditation (76.9%) and yoga (74.6%). Among CIM users, 60.9% informed their physician. Physician awareness was associated with more favourable CIM evaluations (adjusted OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63-4.49). Recommendations were mainly based on self-directed research (59.9%) and friends' advice (31.2%). Conclusion: CIM use among individuals with mental disorders is highly prevalent and predominantly self-initiated. However, many patients do not disclose their CIM use to clinicians. Physician awareness of patients' CIM use was associated with more positive patient-reported evaluations, suggesting that proactive enquiry and open communication about CIM use may facilitate safer and more coordinated care. Further clinical research is required to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and potential interactions of commonly used CIM approaches in psychiatric care.
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.