Explore the vast range of titles available.

In stepped care models patients typically start with a low-intensity evidence-based treatment. Progress is monitored systematically and those patients who do not respond adequately step up to a subsequent treatment of higher intensity. Despite the fact that many guidelines have endorsed this stepped care principle it is not clear if stepped care really delivers similar or better patient outcomes against lower costs compared with other systems. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials on stepped care for depression. We carried out a comprehensive literature search. Selection of studies, evaluation of study quality and extraction of data were performed independently by two authors. A total of 14 studies were included and 10 were used in the meta-analyses (4580 patients). All studies used screening to identify possible patients and care as usual as a comparator. Study quality was relatively high. Stepped care had a moderate effect on depression (pooled 6-month between-group effect size Cohen's d was 0.34; 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.48). The stepped care interventions varied greatly in number and duration of treatment steps, treatments offered, professionals involved, and criteria to step up. There is currently only limited evidence to suggest that stepped care should be the dominant model of treatment organization. Evidence on (cost-) effectiveness compared with high-intensity psychological therapy alone, as well as with matched care, is required.

To explore the global research funding landscape for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine. We conducted a three-part study to assess the global research funding landscape. First, we searched the Dimensions database and online sources using Microsoft Copilot and Google between 12 November 2024 and 22 January 2025 for relevant grants. Second, we analysed national research infrastructure using World Health Organization (WHO) data, verified by regional contacts (14 January-28 February 2025). Third, we appraised selected funders across WHO regions, evaluating funding schemes for innovation, capacity-building and alignment with traditional medicine paradigms. We identified 39 927 grants in the Dimensions database, with funding data available for 27 019 grants totalling 24.5 billion United States dollars (US$) for the years 1960 to 2024. Most grants (42.6%; 11 548) were valued under US$ 100 000, and half had a duration of 2-4 years. Cancer and cardiovascular diseases accounted for over half (8385/15 273) of topic-categorized grants, receiving US$ 5.8 billion and US$ 2.2 billion, respectively. Funders were concentrated in the Region of the Americas, and European and Western Pacific Regions. Only seven countries had schemes explicitly funding research for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine. Case study analysis of 40 schemes across 12 countries revealed limited support for traditional medicine paradigms, with few schemes meeting criteria for innovation, capacity-building or sensitivity to traditional knowledge systems. Funding for traditional medicine research remains disproportionately low relative to its global use. Strengthening support from research funding agencies is essential to achieving the goals of the WHO .

PurposeComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common amongst cancer patients. However, there is growing concern about its safety and efficacy. Online crowdfunding campaigns represent a unique avenue to understand the cancer patient’s perspective for using CAM or declining conventional cancer therapy (CCT).MethodsFive hundred GoFundMe campaigns from 2012 to 2019 detailing financial need for cancer treatment were randomly selected and reviewed for endorsement of CAM use, reasons for using CAM, and reasons for declining CCT. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient and campaign characteristics between 250 CAM users and 250 non-CAM users.ResultsCompared to non-CAM users, CAM users were more likely to be female (70% vs. 54%, p < 0.01), to report more stage IV cancer (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.01), and to have a history of delayed, missed, or misdiagnosis (10% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Reasons for using CAM include endorsing curative/therapeutic effects 212 (85%), pain/stress reduction 137 (55%), and dissatisfaction with current or past medical treatment options 105 (42%). 87 (35%) CAM users that declined CCT reported that they wanted to try to fight off cancer using CAM first 57 (61%), that CCT was too “toxic” to the body 39 (42%), and cancer was already too advanced, so that CCT would be futile or too aggressive 25 (27%).ConclusionCancer patients on GoFundMe using CAM highly value quality of life, comfort, and autonomy. Physicians should educate themselves on CAM to set realistic expectations and provide comprehensive counseling of the risks and benefits of CAM usage to patients who choose to use CAM to either augment or completely replace CCT.

Purpose US cancer survivors commonly use vitamins/minerals and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). We compare use of vitamins/minerals and CAM between adult cancer survivors and cancer-free adults and estimate annual out-of-pocket expenses. Methods Data on self-reported vitamin/mineral and CAM use in the past 12 months from the cross-sectional 2012 US National Health Interview Survey were used to estimate prevalence of use and out-of-pocket expenditures. The cohort included adults with ( n  = 2977) and without ( n  = 30,551) a self-reported cancer diagnosis. Results Approximately 79 % of cancer survivors and 68 % of cancer-free adults reported using ≥1 vitamins/minerals and/or CAM modality in the past year. Compared to cancer-free adults, cancer survivors were more likely to report use of vitamin/minerals (75 vs. 61 %, P  < 0.001), non-vitamin/mineral natural products (24 vs. 19 %, P  < 0.001), manipulative and body-based therapies (19 vs. 17 %, P  = 0.03), and alternative medical systems (5 vs. 4 %, P  = 0.04). Adult cancer survivors and cancer-free adults spent an annual estimated $6.7 billion and $52 billion out-of-pocket, respectively, on vitamins/minerals and CAM. Survivors spent 60 % of the total on vitamins/minerals ($4 billion), 18 % ($1.2 billion) on non-vitamin/mineral natural products, and 7 % ($0.5 billion) on massage. Conclusions Compared with cancer-free adults, a higher proportion of cancer survivors report vitamin/mineral and CAM use. Cancer survivors, who accounted for 6.9 % of the total population, accrued more than 11.4 % of the annual out-of-pocket costs on vitamins/minerals and CAM spent by US adults. Implications for Cancer Survivors Given the high use of vitamins/minerals and CAM in cancer survivors, studies are needed to analyze health outcomes and the cost/benefit ratio of such use.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly being integrated into conventional medical care for cancer, used to counter the side effects of conventional cancer treatment, and offered as an alternative to conventional cancer care. Our aim is to gain a broader understanding of trends in CAM interventions for cancer and crowdfunding campaigns for these interventions. GoFundMe campaigns fundraising for CAM were retrieved through a database of crowdfunding campaign data. Search terms were drawn from two National Institutes of Health lists of CAM cancer interventions and a previous study. Campaigns were excluded that did not match these or related search terms or were initiated outside of June 4th, 2018 to June 4th, 2019. 1,396 campaigns were identified from the US (n = 1,037, 73.9%), Canada (n = 165, 11.8%), and the UK (n = 107, 7.7%). Most common cancer types were breast (n = 344, 24.6%), colorectal (n = 131, 9.4%), and brain (n = 98, 7.0%). CAM interventions sought included supplements (n = 422, 30.2%), better nutrition (n = 293, 21.0%), high dose vitamin C (n = 276, 19.8%), naturopathy (n = 226, 16.2%), and cannabis products (n = 211, 15.1%). Mexico (n = 198, 41.9%), and the US (n = 169, 35.7%) were the most common treatment destinations. These findings confirm active and ongoing interest in using crowdfunding platforms to finance CAM cancer interventions. They confirm previous findings that CAM users with cancer tend to have late stage cancers, cancers with high mortality rates, and specific diseases such as breast cancer. These findings can inform targeted responses where facilities engage in misleading marketing practices and the efficacy of interventions is unproven.

Traditional and complementary medicines are increasingly considered possible options for prevention and symptomatic treatment of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. With renewed attention on these therapies from researchers and policy makers alike, the well-documented challenges of evaluating their safety and efficacy are once again of global concern. Between 2005 and 2018, the World Health Organization conducted a series of surveys, in which 88 percent of responding member states confirmed that their biggest challenge in traditional medicine was the need for technical guidance on research and evaluation. As a first step in pursuing this need, our commentary summarizes thirteen international and regional guidance documents by three broad categories on evaluating safety, efficacy, and product quality for market-based approval and distribution of these treatments. We highlight the paucity of updated international recommendations on these subjects and identify gaps that could inform the current evidence base. All available guidance note the need for evidence surrounding the efficacy of these treatments and practices but are also quick to caution against methodological difficulties in the conduct of such evaluations. Evidence suggests that improved evaluation methods on efficacy and effectiveness are crucial toward expanding future research into establishing the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, in the context of shifting acceptance, interest, and integration of traditional medicines into health systems, and as another step toward Universal Health Coverage.

Purpose Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use increases in cancer patients, including adult patients with diffuse gliomas. Methods Questionnaires addressing CAM use were distributed to adult patients with gliomas of WHO grades II-IV and ECOG performance score of 0–2 during hospital visits and filled in anonymously. The study was conducted in nine centers in France from May 2017 to May 2018. Descriptive cohort analyses and comparative analyses according to gender, age, WHO grade, and recurrent versus newly diagnosed disease were conducted. Results Two hundred twenty-seven questionnaires were collected; 135 patients (59%) were male. Median age was 48 years, 105 patients (46%) declared having glioblastoma, 99 patients (43%) declared having recurrent disease. Hundred-three patients (45%) had modified their alimentary habits after the glioma diagnosis. At the time of the questionnaire, 100 patients (44%) were on complementary treatment, mainly vitamins and food supplements, and 73 patients (32%) used alternative medicine approaches, mainly magnetism and acupuncture. In total, 154 patients (68%) declared using at least one of these approaches. Expenditures exceeding 100 € per month were reported by users in 14% for modification of alimentary habits, in 25% for complementary treatment, and in 18% for alternative medicines. All approaches were commonly considered as improving quality of life and experienced as efficient, notably those associated with more expenditures. Conclusions CAM are frequently used by glioma patients in France. Underlying needs and expectations, as well as potential interactions with tumor-specific treatments, and financial and quality of life burden, should be discussed with patients and caregivers.

Background: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. Objectives: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. Research Design: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Subjects: Adults (above 17y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. Measures: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. Results: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P=0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $ 526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P=0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. Conclusions: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these crosssectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.

Cancer patients and their families experience a range of physical, psychological and financial adverse effects. Community-based cancer centres offer a range of services and interventions, free of charge, to support those affected by cancer. While shown to be effective, there is a lack of information on the costs of these services. Our aim was to estimate the resource impact of a community-based cancer support centre. Over a 7-month period, there were 2032 contacts with 238 clients whose average age was 60 years. The most frequently used services were transport to treatment (20%), complementary therapies (48%), exercise classes (10%) and counselling (9%). This cost analysis estimated total annual cost to provide all services was €313,744. Average annual cost per person was €1138. Current uptake at the centre represents 8% of all cancer incidences in seven counties surrounding the centre. If uptake increases by 10%, scenario analyses predict an increase in total costs increase to €429,043 and a decrease in costs per patient to €915. As cancer incidences increase, the need for supportive care is growing. Community-based services have been established to meet these needs and fill this gap in national health services. Long-term sustainability of these centres is uncertain as they are entirely reliant on donations and volunteers. This analysis estimates the costs of one such community-based cancer support centre, for the first time in Ireland. Findings can be used to inform future planning of cancer supportive care services, including establishing links between tertiary and community-based centres, and cost effectiveness analyses, nationally and internationally.