↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1660-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasamin Veziari, Matthew J. Leach, Saravana Kumar

Abstract

The popularity of Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably over the past few decades. This has been accompanied by increasing public pressure for CAM to be evidence-based. Notwithstanding, the conduct and application of research in CAM faces a number of obstacles. No systematic review has mapped these barriers to date. Therefore, this systematic literature review aimed to explore, identify and map the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. Systematic searching of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, The Cochrane library, Google scholar and Google was conducted between February and June 2016 for pertinent publications. Pearling (secondary searching) of retrieved publications was also undertaken. Literature published only in English were included; however, no year limit was placed for searching. Two critical appraisal tools were used to critically appraise descriptive studies and opinion publications. A total of 21 eligible publications were included in this review; this comprised of eight primary research articles and thirteen opinion publications. A critical appraisal process found two categories of good quality publications while recognising their limitations in terms of descriptive and opinion publications. The synthesised data from the selected publications about the barriers to the conduct and application of research within CAM were captured within two broad components, namely capacity and culture. Capacity encompassed elements such as access, competency, bias, incentives and time. Encompassed within culture were elements relating to the values and complex system of CAM. Multiple barriers exist for the conduct and application of research in CAM. Given the growing popularity of these therapies, it is essential that the evidence base underpinning CAM also continues to expand. Without overt recognition of these barriers, enabling strategies cannot be applied. By addressing these barriers, CAM professions will be able to develop a critical mass and a well-coordinated research effort to assist the integration of evidence - based practice in CAM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 24 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 24%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,907,407
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#961
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,996
of 310,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#25
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 310,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.