Exploring Pain Researcher and Clinician Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey.
{"title":"Exploring Pain Researcher and Clinician Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Jeremy Y Ng, Dennis Anheyer, Holger Cramer","doi":"10.1111/papr.70140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has gained popularity among patients experiencing pain, used alongside conventional medical treatments. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of pain clinicians and researchers on CAIM interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous, online survey was distributed to 46,223 authors who had published pain-related research in MEDLINE-indexed journals. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended sections to gather detailed opinions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1024 participants responded, 900 of which were eligible to participate; most identified as either pain researchers (n = 435/900, 48.33%) or both researchers and clinicians (n = 398/900, 44.22%). Many held senior positions (n = 549/892, 61.55%). Among the CAIM modalities, mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and biofeedback were viewed as the most promising for pain prevention, treatment, and management, with 68.47% (n = 569/831) of participants endorsing these approaches. While (n = 341/777, 43.89%) of the respondents believed that most CAIM therapies are safe, only 25.55% (n = 198/775) disagreed with the idea that such therapies are effective. There was broad agreement on the need for more research into CAIM therapies, with 45.88% (n = 356/776) agreeing and 42.53% (n = 330/776) strongly agreeing that further investigation is valuable. Additionally, many respondents supported the inclusion of CAIM training in clinician education, either through formal programs (n = 361/778, 46.40%) or supplementary courses (n = 409/776, 52.71%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mind-body therapies received the most positive feedback, while biofield therapies were met with the most skepticism. These findings highlight the interest in CAIM among pain researchers and clinicians and emphasize the need for more research and education tailored to this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"26 4","pages":"e70140"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12988455/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70140","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has gained popularity among patients experiencing pain, used alongside conventional medical treatments. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of pain clinicians and researchers on CAIM interventions.
Methods: An anonymous, online survey was distributed to 46,223 authors who had published pain-related research in MEDLINE-indexed journals. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended sections to gather detailed opinions.
Results: A total of 1024 participants responded, 900 of which were eligible to participate; most identified as either pain researchers (n = 435/900, 48.33%) or both researchers and clinicians (n = 398/900, 44.22%). Many held senior positions (n = 549/892, 61.55%). Among the CAIM modalities, mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and biofeedback were viewed as the most promising for pain prevention, treatment, and management, with 68.47% (n = 569/831) of participants endorsing these approaches. While (n = 341/777, 43.89%) of the respondents believed that most CAIM therapies are safe, only 25.55% (n = 198/775) disagreed with the idea that such therapies are effective. There was broad agreement on the need for more research into CAIM therapies, with 45.88% (n = 356/776) agreeing and 42.53% (n = 330/776) strongly agreeing that further investigation is valuable. Additionally, many respondents supported the inclusion of CAIM training in clinician education, either through formal programs (n = 361/778, 46.40%) or supplementary courses (n = 409/776, 52.71%).
Conclusions: Mind-body therapies received the most positive feedback, while biofield therapies were met with the most skepticism. These findings highlight the interest in CAIM among pain researchers and clinicians and emphasize the need for more research and education tailored to this area.
期刊介绍：
Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
