Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Therapies and its Perspective among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This systematic review aims to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of Complementary and alternative medicine therapies and its perspectives among healthcare professionals. Methods: PubMed/Medline, Google scholar, online data base were searched for relevant data from 2010 to 2021 in English language by using keywords of Complementary therapies, alternative medicine, healing science, soul healing therapies, allied therapies, energy healing science etc. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-AnalysisProtocols 2015 guideline and Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design model were used in analyzing the studies. Results: This review included 13 studies included within the last 10 years that investigated knowledge, attitude and practices regarding CAM.Finding suggested that Folk medicines (46%) and ayurvedic medicines (45%) were most commonly used CAM. Advice from friends/relatives was the commonest source of information. None of the respondents had knowledge of adverse effects of CAM used by them and about 70% did not inform their doctor about use of CAM. 61.5% of the HCPs were aware that CAM includes AYUSH. 53% of the HCPs used CAM for self, especially for respiratory disorders (28.3%) and chronic painful conditions (21.6%). The common adverse effects attributed to use of CAM among patients which required consultation of the HCPs were hepatic (42.5%) and renal impairment (32.5%), allergy (10%), relapse Conclusion: This systematic review revealed that CAM treatments depends on various factors working at multiple levels viz., personal factors, disease’ characteristics, perceived treatment characteristics (positive attributes of CAM and negative attributes of BM) and external facilitators. Furthermore, the analysis also identifies the role of two underlining forces–push and pull–in motivating CAD patients to choose CAM treatments. The push force comprises factor that participants found to have a repelling nature, whereas pull forces were regarded as advantageous for CAM usage.