To develop a policy, practice, education and research agenda for evidence-based practice (EBP) in traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM).
The study was a secondary analysis of qualitative data, using the method of roundtable discussion. The sample comprised seventeen experts in EBP and T&CM. The discussion was audio-recorded, and the transcript analysed using thematic analysis.
Four central themes emerged from the data; understanding evidence and EBP, drivers of change, interpersonal interaction, and moving forward. Captured within these themes were fifteen sub-themes. These themes/sub-themes translated into three broad calls to action: (1) defining terminology, (2) defining the EBP approach, and (3) fostering social movement. These calls to action formed the framework of the agenda.
This analysis presents a potential framework for an agenda to improve EBP implementation in T&CM. The fundamental elements of this action plan seek clarification, leadership and unification on the issue of EBP in T&CM.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2025.
All research outputs
#5,148,489
of 27,729,689 outputs
Outputs from Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
#404
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,749
of 456,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
#10
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,729,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 456,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
