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.
What is New?
While complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) therapies are generally perceived by cardiology professionals as being safe and as having multiple potential benefits, there remains a strong need for additional research and training on CAIM interventions.
In this study, support for CAIM therapies varied by modality, with mind-body therapies and biologically based practices garnering the most favor and biofield therapies garnering the least.
What Are the Clinical Implications?
Given the rising demand for CAIM interventions and the significance of lifestyle factors for cardiac conditions, there is a critical need for cardiology professionals to access CAIM-based research and education to meet patients’ needs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This is not a clinical trial.
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 Tübingen 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.
Non-standard Abbreviations and Acronyms
- CAM
- complementary and alternative medicine
- CAIM
- complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine
- CVD
- cardiovascular disease
- MEDLINE
- Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online
- NLM
- National Library of Medicine
- OSF
- Open Science Framework
- PMIDs
- PubMed Identifiers
- STROBE
- Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
