BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether federally funded complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research is translating into clinical practice. We sought to describe the awareness of CAM clinical trials, the ability to interpret research results, the acceptance of research evidence, and the predictors of trial awareness among US clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey of 2400 practicing US acupuncturists, naturopaths, internists, and rheumatologists. RESULTS: A total of 1561 clinicians (65%) responded. Of the respondents, 59% were aware of at least 1 major CAM clinical trial; only 23% were aware of both trials. A minority of acupuncturists (20%), naturopaths (25%), internists (17%), and rheumatologists (33%) were "very confident" in interpreting research results (P < .001). Fewer acupuncturists (17%) and naturopaths (24%) than internists (58%) and rheumatologists (74%) rated the results of randomized controlled trials as "very useful" (P < .001). Twice as many internists (53%) and rheumatologists (64%) rated patient preferences as "least important" compared with acupuncturists (27%) and naturopaths (31%) (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, for clinicians aware of at least 1 trial, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.30 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.62]), prior research experience (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.13-1.86]), institutional or academic practice setting (ORs, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.01-3.91], and 1.23 [95% CI, 0.73-2.09], respectively), and rating randomized trials as "very useful" (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.12-1.91]) (P < .001) for clinical decision making were positively associated with CAM trial awareness. Acupuncturists, naturopaths, and internists (ORs, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.23], 0.15 [95% CI, 0.09-0.24], and 0.18 [95% CI, 0.12-0.28], respectively) were all similarly less aware of CAM trial results compared with rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: For clinical research in CAM to achieve its social value, concerted efforts must be undertaken to train clinicians and improve the dissemination of research results.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether federally funded complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research is translating into clinical practice. We sought to describe the awareness of CAM clinical trials, the ability to interpret research results, the acceptance of research evidence, and the predictors of trial awareness among US clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey of 2400 practicing US acupuncturists, naturopaths, internists, and rheumatologists. RESULTS: A total of 1561 clinicians (65%) responded. Of the respondents, 59% were aware of at least 1 major CAM clinical trial; only 23% were aware of both trials. A minority of acupuncturists (20%), naturopaths (25%), internists (17%), and rheumatologists (33%) were "very confident" in interpreting research results (P < .001). Fewer acupuncturists (17%) and naturopaths (24%) than internists (58%) and rheumatologists (74%) rated the results of randomized controlled trials as "very useful" (P < .001). Twice as many internists (53%) and rheumatologists (64%) rated patient preferences as "least important" compared with acupuncturists (27%) and naturopaths (31%) (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, for clinicians aware of at least 1 trial, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.30 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.62]), prior research experience (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.13-1.86]), institutional or academic practice setting (ORs, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.01-3.91], and 1.23 [95% CI, 0.73-2.09], respectively), and rating randomized trials as "very useful" (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.12-1.91]) (P < .001) for clinical decision making were positively associated with CAM trial awareness. Acupuncturists, naturopaths, and internists (ORs, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.23], 0.15 [95% CI, 0.09-0.24], and 0.18 [95% CI, 0.12-0.28], respectively) were all similarly less aware of CAM trial results compared with rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: For clinical research in CAM to achieve its social value, concerted efforts must be undertaken to train clinicians and improve the dissemination of research results.
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jon C Tilburt; Franklin G Miller; Sarah Jenkins; Ted J Kaptchuk; Brian Clarridge; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Farr A Curlin Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Cynthia R Long; Deborah L Ackerman; Richard Hammerschlag; Louise Delagran; David H Peterson; Michelle Berlin; Roni L Evans Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Brandy M Fleming; Emiko L Schwab; Simonne S Nouer; Jim Y Wan; Mark S LeDoux Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Farr A Curlin; Kenneth A Rasinski; Ted J Kaptchuk; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Franklin G Miller; Jon C Tilburt Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Benjamin L Marx; Ryan Milley; Dara G Cantor; Deborah L Ackerman; Richard Hammerschlag Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 3.659