ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Complementary and integrative medicine use in mental disorders: socioeconomic patterns and healthcare utilization 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) is widely used among individuals with mental disorders, but evidence on associated out-of-pocket expenditures and socioeconomic differences in spending remains limited. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the PSYKIM cross-sectional study of adults with self-reported psychiatric disorders in Germany. Associations of CIM-related out-of-pocket costs and expenditure categories with sociodemographic and clinical variables, physician awareness, subjective evaluation of CIM approaches, and health insurance status were examined descriptively and using multivariable binary and ordinal logistic regression models where appropriate. A relative financial burden measure, approximated as the ratio of CIM-related out-of-pocket expenses to available monthly income, was analyzed descriptively. Results: Among 657 participants with complete cost data, 72% reported out-of-pocket CIM-related costs. Higher disposable income was associated with higher odds of reporting out-of-pocket costs (aOR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.04-1.37) and higher expenditure categories (aOR = 1.18; 95% CI: 1.06-1.31). Physician awareness of CIM use and more positive evaluations of CIM were also associated with higher expenditures. Men had lower adjusted odds of reporting out-of-pocket costs than women (aOR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.76), while participants with university-level qualifications more frequently reported such costs in descriptive analyses. Disease duration, psychiatric diagnosis, and health insurance status were not clearly associated with CIM-related costs. CIM use was not associated with lower use of conventional medication. Conclusion: CIM use among individuals with mental disorders in Germany is frequently associated with private out-of-pocket expenditures and appears to be socially patterned. The findings further suggest that CIM is primarily used as an adjunct to, rather than a substitute for, conventional psychiatric treatment. Given the cross-sectional design, these observations should be confirmed in prospective observational studies.
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.