Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33203398›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020

Findings from a three-round Delphi study: essential topics for interprofessional training on complementary and integrative medicine.

Angelika Homberg, Nadja Klafke, Svetla Loukanova, Katharina Glassen

Open access · goldAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angelika HombergDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. angelika.homberg@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5585-1126
Nadja KlafkeDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Svetla LoukanovaDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Katharina GlassenDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrating complementary medicine into medical care promotes patient-oriented care. A well-informed and collaborative professional healthcare team is essential for effective and patient-safe implementation of these methods. At present, the skills for patient counseling, therapy and care regarding complementary medicine vary among the professional groups involved. Professionals generally feel that they are not sufficiently qualified in this area. Curricular concepts for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) are virtually non-existent in undergraduate interprofessional training. The aim of this study is to initiate a consensus-building process between various experts (professionals, students, patient and faculty representatives) in order to identify which topics should be the focus of such a curriculum.

methodsA three-round Delphi study was carried out from March 2018 to March 2019 to compile the experience and knowledge of experts in the field of integrative patient care and interprofessional education. Sixty-five experts from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland with various professional backgrounds and experiences were asked to name general content, therapy methods and treatment reasons which should be addressed in interprofessional seminars. In the subsequent rounds these were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. The ratings were assigned to relevance groups and discussed in a final workshop in July 2019.

resultsThe response rates for the three rounds were 76% (n = 50), 80% (n = 40) 90% (n = 36); and 21% (n = 11) for the final workshop. The experts suggested that topics could be aligned along the most common treatment reasons such as insomnia, generalized pain, fatigue and back pain. However, it is important that students also receive an overview of the evidence base for different therapeutic concepts, especially in the field of classical natural medicine, acupuncture and mind-body medicine, and that they get an overview of the effects and interactions of frequently used procedures.

conclusionConsensus was reached among the various experts on the most important topics for an interprofessional CIM curriculum. The systematic evaluation of the topics in this study can help to create a curriculum that achieves a high level of acceptance among teachers, lecturers and students, and thus facilitates implementation at universities and medical faculties.

Indexed as

AdultAgedComplementary TherapiesConsensusDelphi TechniqueEducationEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth EducationHealth PersonnelHumansIntegrative MedicineInterprofessional RelationsKnowledgeMaleMiddle AgedComplementary medicineCurriculum developmentDelphi studyIntegrative medicineInterprofessional collaborationInterprofessional educationMedical education

Identifiers

PMID33203398
PMCPMC7670669
OpenAlexW3104486563

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.