The use and effects of telemedicine on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine practices: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine includes the delivery of health-care services and sharing of health information across distances. Past research has found that telemedicine can play a role in enhancing complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) while allowing the maintenance of cultural values and ancestral knowledge. This scoping review synthesized evidence regarding the use of telemedicine in the context of CAIM. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE and AMED databases were searched systematically. The CADTH website was also searched for grey literature. Eligible articles included a CAIM practice or therapy offered through telemedicine, with no restrictions placed on the type of telemedicine technology used. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to synthesise common themes among the included studies. RESULTS: Sixty-two articles were included in this synthesis. The following themes emerged: 1) the practitioner view of CAIM delivered through telemedicine, 2) the patient view of CAIM delivered through telemedicine, and 3) the technological impacts of telemedicine delivery of CAIM. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have shown that telemedicine delivery of CAIM is feasible, acceptable, and results in positive health outcomes. Some barriers remain such as the presence of chronic illness and morbidity, inability to form strong patient-provider relationships relative to face-to-face approaches, and technological difficulties. Future intervention research should focus on reducing such barriers, as well as explore which patient population would realize the greatest benefit from CAIM delivered via telemedicine, and the impact of interventions on providers and caregivers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".