Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by the general population: a systematic review and update

To update previous systematic reviews of 12‐month prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by general populations and explore trends in CAM use by national populations, a brief tool for assessing methodological quality of published CAM‐use prevalence surveys is developed.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To update previous systematic reviews of 12-month prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by general populations; to explore trends in CAM use by national populations; to develop and apply a brief tool for assessing methodological quality of published CAM-use prevalence surveys. DESIGN: Nine databases were searched for published studies from 1998 onwards. Studies prior to 1998 were identified from two previous systematic reviews. A six-item literature-based tool was devised to assess robustness and interpretability of CAM-use estimates. RESULTS: Fifty-one reports from 49 surveys conducted in 15 countries met the inclusion criteria. We extracted 32 estimates of 12-month prevalence of use of any CAM (range 9.8-76%) and 33 estimates of 12-month prevalence of visits to CAM practitioners (range 1.8-48.7%). Quality of methodological reporting was variable; 30/51 survey reports (59%) met four or more of six quality criteria. Estimates of 12-month prevalence of any CAM use (excluding prayer) from surveys using consistent measurement methods showed remarkable stability in Australia (49%, 52%, 52%; 1993, 2000, 2004) and USA (36%, 38%; 2002, 2007). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence of substantial CAM use in the 15 countries surveyed. Where national trends were discernable because of consistent measurement, there was no evidence to suggest a change in 12-month prevalence of CAM use since the previous systematic reviews were published in 2000. Periodic surveys are important to monitor population-level CAM use. Use of government-sponsored health surveys may enhance robustness of population-based prevalence estimates. Comparisons across countries could be improved by standardising approaches to data collection.