An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Cardiology Researchers and Clinicians: Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine

Jeremy Y Ng, Mehvish Masood, Sivany Kathir, Holger Cramer
{"title":"An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Cardiology Researchers and Clinicians: Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine","authors":"Jeremy Y Ng, Mehvish Masood, Sivany Kathir, Holger Cramer","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.23.24310901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has been increasing in popularity for patients with cardiovascular illnesses. However, little is known about perceptions of CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. In response, this study aimed to assess the practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. Methods: An anonymous, digital cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and clinicians who have published articles in cardiology journals indexed in OVID MEDLINE. The survey was sent to 37,915 researchers and clinicians and included 5-point Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to analyze open-ended responses. Results: Among the 309 respondents, the majority (n=173, 55.99%) identified themselves as both researchers and clinicians in the field of cardiology. While 45.78% (n=114) of participants expressed agreement regarding the safety of CAIM therapies, 44.40% (n=111) disagreed on their efficacy. Most respondents believed in the value of conducting research on CAIM therapies (79.2%, n=198). Respondents perceived mind-body therapies (57.61%, n=159) and biologically based practices (47.46%, n=131) as the most promising interventions for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular conditions. Biofield therapies were the least favoured for integration into mainstream medical practices (11.93%, n=29).\nConclusions: While cardiology researchers and clinicians perceive CAIM therapies to have potential, many are hesitant about integrating such interventions into the current medical system due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and standardized products. Insights from this study may help establish educational resources for healthcare practitioners.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.23.24310901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has been increasing in popularity for patients with cardiovascular illnesses. However, little is known about perceptions of CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. In response, this study aimed to assess the practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. Methods: An anonymous, digital cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and clinicians who have published articles in cardiology journals indexed in OVID MEDLINE. The survey was sent to 37,915 researchers and clinicians and included 5-point Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to analyze open-ended responses. Results: Among the 309 respondents, the majority (n=173, 55.99%) identified themselves as both researchers and clinicians in the field of cardiology. While 45.78% (n=114) of participants expressed agreement regarding the safety of CAIM therapies, 44.40% (n=111) disagreed on their efficacy. Most respondents believed in the value of conducting research on CAIM therapies (79.2%, n=198). Respondents perceived mind-body therapies (57.61%, n=159) and biologically based practices (47.46%, n=131) as the most promising interventions for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular conditions. Biofield therapies were the least favoured for integration into mainstream medical practices (11.93%, n=29). Conclusions: While cardiology researchers and clinicians perceive CAIM therapies to have potential, many are hesitant about integrating such interventions into the current medical system due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and standardized products. Insights from this study may help establish educational resources for healthcare practitioners.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项针对心脏病学研究人员和临床医生的国际性横断面调查:对补充、替代和整合医学的看法
背景:对于心血管疾病患者来说,补充、替代和综合医学(CAIM)越来越受欢迎。然而,心脏病学研究人员和临床医生对 CAIM 的看法却知之甚少。为此,本研究旨在评估心脏病学研究人员和临床医生对 CAIM 的实践、认知和态度。方法:对在 OVID MEDLINE 索引的心脏病学期刊上发表过文章的研究人员和临床医生进行匿名、数字化横断面调查。该调查共发送给 37,915 名研究人员和临床医生,包括 5 点李克特量表、多项选择题和开放式问题。对定量数据进行了基本描述性统计,并对开放式回答进行了主题内容分析。结果:在 309 位受访者中,大多数受访者(173 人,占 55.99%)认为自己既是心脏病学领域的研究人员,也是临床医生。45.78%(n=114)的参与者表示同意 CAIM 疗法的安全性,44.40%(n=111)的参与者不同意其有效性。大多数受访者相信对 CAIM 疗法进行研究的价值(79.2%,n=198)。受访者认为心身疗法(57.61%,n=159)和生物疗法(47.46%,n=131)是最有希望预防和治疗心血管疾病的干预措施。生物场疗法最不适合纳入主流医疗实践(11.93%,n=29):尽管心脏病学研究人员和临床医生认为 CAIM 疗法具有潜力,但由于缺乏科学证据和标准化产品,许多人对将此类干预措施纳入当前医疗体系犹豫不决。这项研究的启示可能有助于为医疗从业人员建立教育资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems on the Performance of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Yumbe Regional referral hospital; A Pre-post quasi-experimental study design Plaintiff experiences of the medico-legal environment in Ireland “We’re here to help them if they want to come”: A qualitative exploration of hospital staff perceptions and experiences with outpatient non-attendance Improving Access and Efficiency of Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment Across Four Canadian Provinces: A Stepped-Wedge Trial I am a quarterback: A mixed methods study of death investigators' communication with family members of young sudden cardiac death victims from suspected heritable causes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1