Abstract
Background The use of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is commonly used among pediatric patients for various conditions. Pediatrics clinicians and researchers’ perceptions towards the incorporation of CAIM therapies have varied. This study aims to investigate the perceptions of both pediatrics researchers and clinicians regarding CAIM.
Methods We conducted a large-scale, international cross-sectional online survey with published pediatrics authors who have published their work in pediatrics medical journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. In total, 34 494 researchers and clinicians were invited to complete the survey. The survey recorded respondents’ perceptions on various CAIM therapies. Descriptive statistics were generated from the quantitative survey results. A thematic analysis was conducted for responses to open ended questions.
Results In total, 731 pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers responded to the survey, with about half of the respondents being faculty members/principal investigators (56.10%) and/or clinicians (43.45%) and from the Americas (46.56%) or Europe (30.53%). Over half of the respondents viewed mind-body therapies favourably (62.01%) and the fewest respondents held favourable perceptions of biofield therapies (6.98%). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is value in conducting further research on CAIM therapies (85.52%) and disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt comfortable recommending most CAIM therapies to patients (64.83%). A thematic analysis of our findings demonstrates that many pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers support further research on CAIM.
Conclusion The findings from this study demonstrate that pediatrics clinicians and researchers have varying perceptions towards CAIM therapies. Respondents had the most positive perceptions of mind-body therapies and felt they did not have adequate training on CAIM. Further research is needed to establish more evidence-based educational resources on CAIM.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BHUWX
Funding Statement
This study was unfunded.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received approval from the University Tubingen Research Ethics board before commencement (REB Number: 389/2023BO2).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data and materials associated with this study have been posted on the Open Science Framework.
List of Abbreviations
- CAIM
- complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine
- CHERRIES
- Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys
- HCCRs
- Healthcare clinicians and researchers
- MEDLINE
- Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online
- NLM
- National Library of Medicine
- OSF
- Open Science Framework
- PMIDs
- PubMed Identifiers
