Ng Jeremy Y, Masood Mehvish, Kathir Sivany, Cramer Holger
Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany.
PLoS One. 2025 May 6;20(5):e0322340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322340. eCollection 2025.
Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has been increasing in popularity among patients with cardiovascular illnesses. However, little is known about perceptions of CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. In response, this study aimed to assess the practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians.
An anonymous, digital cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and clinicians who have published articles in cardiology journals indexed in OVID MEDLINE. The survey was sent to 37,915 researchers and clinicians and included 5-point Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to analyze open-ended responses.
Among the 309 respondents, the majority (n = 173, 55.99%) identified themselves as both researchers and clinicians in the field of cardiology. While 45.78% (n = 114) of participants expressed agreement regarding the safety of CAIM therapies, 44.40% (n = 111) disagreed on their efficacy. Most respondents believed in the value of conducting research on CAIM therapies (79.2%, n = 198). Respondents perceived mind-body therapies (57.61%, n = 159) and biologically based practices (47.46%, n = 131) as the most promising interventions for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular conditions. Biofield therapies were the least favoured for integration into mainstream medical practices (11.93%, n = 29).
While cardiology researchers and clinicians perceive CAIM therapies to have potential, many are hesitant about integrating such interventions into the current medical system due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and standardized products. Insights from this study may help establish educational resources for healthcare practitioners.
补充、替代和整合医学（CAIM）在心血管疾病患者中越来越受欢迎。然而，对于心脏病学研究人员和临床医生对CAIM的看法知之甚少。为此，本研究旨在评估心脏病学研究人员和临床医生对CAIM的实践、看法和态度。
对在OVID MEDLINE索引的心脏病学期刊上发表过文章的研究人员和临床医生进行了一项匿名的数字横断面调查。该调查发送给了37915名研究人员和临床医生，包括5点李克特量表、多项选择题和开放式问题。从定量数据中得出基本描述性统计数据，并进行主题内容分析以分析开放式回答。
在309名受访者中，大多数（n = 173，55.99%）将自己认定为心脏病学领域的研究人员和临床医生。虽然45.78%（n = 114）的参与者对CAIM疗法的安全性表示认同，但44.40%（n = 111）的人对其疗效表示不同意。大多数受访者认为对CAIM疗法进行研究具有价值（79.2%，n = 198）。受访者认为身心疗法（57.61%，n = 159）和基于生物的实践（47.46%，n = 131）是预防和治疗心血管疾病最有前景的干预措施。生物场疗法最不适合纳入主流医疗实践（11.93%，n = 29）。
虽然心脏病学研究人员和临床医生认为CAIM疗法具有潜力，但由于认为缺乏科学证据和标准化产品，许多人对将此类干预措施纳入当前医疗系统持犹豫态度。本研究的见解可能有助于为医疗从业者建立教育资源。
