Barriers and Facilitators to Integrating Acupuncture into the U.S. Health Care System: A Scoping Review

Background: Acupuncture is a widely practiced complementary and integrative health modality that has multiple clinical applications. The use of acupuncture in the United States is rapidly increasing. Although studies have shown the efficacy and effectiveness of acupuncture for various ailments, the integration of acupuncture into the U.S. health care system remains a challenge. Little is known about the factors affecting this integration. Objective: To provide a systematic review of the barriers and facilitators affecting the integration of acupuncture into the U.S. health care system. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched. Three independent reviewers were involved in the screening and data charting processes. Findings were synthesized and categorized into four levels based on the Social Ecological Model. Results: A total of 22 studies were included in the final review. The barriers and facilitators affecting the integration of acupuncture were mapped into four levels (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and policy). The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators were mapped into the Social Ecological Model constructs within the "Individual" level (i.e., beliefs and attitudes of acupuncture, and practical issues) and the "Organizational" level (i.e., credentialing, space and facility, referral system). Conclusion: This review has identified and synthesized the breadth of evidence on the barriers and facilitators to the integration of acupuncture into the U.S. health care system. Results of this review will guide future implementation studies to develop and test implementation strategies to integrate acupuncture into the U.S. health care system.

Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis

BACKGROUND

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42-62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37-54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019125628.