SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Improving complementary medicine literacy: a systematic review of educational interventions for consumers and caregivers.
Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary medicines (CMs), including herbal products, nutritional supplements, vitamins, minerals, probiotics and prebiotics, are increasingly integrated into standard medical treatments. Despite their growing popularity, concerns about safety, efficacy, and potential interactions with conventional medications persist. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of various educational interventions (EIs) designed to enhance the knowledge, informed decision-making capabilities, awareness of side effects, and consumer perceptions of safety and efficacy of CMs. This study aims to identify the most effective strategies for improving the awareness of potential risks and benefits, and overall health literacy among CMs users.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed/ MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published from inception to May 2024. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and non-MeSH terms, along with various logic operators, were used to identify studies evaluating EIs aimed at improving CMs knowledge and decision-making. We included the studies if they evaluated EIs about CMs for consumers, patients, and caregivers, with eligible designs including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of interventional studies.
resultsFifteen eligible studies were included. Interventions ranged from interactive multimedia programs and online platforms to personalized face-to-face counselling. The interventions demonstrated significant improvements in CMs knowledge, self-efficacy, and informed decision-making among participants. High levels of participant satisfaction were consistently reported, particularly with interactive and engaging tools.
conclusionThis systematic review underscores the critical role of education in promoting the safe and informed use of CMs. Effective educational interventions enhance knowledge, informed decision-making abilities, and awareness of side effects. However, challenges such as high attrition rates and variability in study designs indicate the need for further research to optimize these interventions. Future efforts should focus on standardizing educational strategies to improve CMs related health literacy and ensure the safe use of CMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.