Background: Practitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised. Objective: To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources: Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection: Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: We identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference −0.43 [95% confidence interval −0.65 to −0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons. Conclusions: Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.

Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) are used by an extensive number of patients in the UK and elsewhere. In order to understand this pattern of behavior, it is helpful to examine the characteristics of people who use CAM. This narrative review collates and evaluates the evidence concerning the demographic characteristics and health status factors associated with CAM use in community‐based non‐clinical populations. A systematic literature search of computerized databases was conducted, and published research papers which present evidence concerning associations between CAM use and demographic and health characteristics are discussed and evaluated. The evidence suggests that people who use CAM tend to be female, of middle age and have more education. In terms of their health, CAM users tend to have more than one medical condition, but might not be more likely than non‐users to have specific conditions such as cancer or to rate their own general health as poor. The multivariate studies that have been conducted suggest that both demographic and health characteristics contribute independently to CAM use. In conclusion, demographic characteristics and factors related to an individual′s health status are associated with CAM use. Future research is needed to address methodological limitations in existing studies.

People might be attracted to and use complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) because they hold beliefs that are congruent with CAM. This article collates, examines and synthesizes the evidence surrounding this hypothesis. Most studies are cross-sectional and focus on a limited number of beliefs. Multivariate studies suggest that beliefs related to control and participation, perceptions of illness, holism and natural treatments, and general philosophies of life predict CAM use when controlling for demographic and clinical factors. Further research should examine the robustness of these relationships in different illness groups and the prospective relationships among beliefs and CAM use over time.

Purpose: Our study identified factors common to a variety of populations and settings that may promote or inhibit uptake and adherence to falls-related interventions. Design and Methods: Semistructured interviews to assess perceived advantages and barriers to taking part in falls-related interventions were carried out in six European countries with 69 people aged 68 to 97 years. The sample was selected to include people with very different experiences of participation or nonparticipation in falls-related interventions, but all individuals were asked about interventions that included strength and balance training. Results: Attitudes were similar in all countries and contexts. People were motivated to participate in strength and balance training by a wide range of perceived benefits (interest and enjoyment, improved health, mood, and independence) and not just reduction of falling risk. Participation also was encouraged by a personal invitation from a health practitioner and social approval from family and friends. Barriers to participation included denial of falling risk, the belief that no additional falls-prevention measures were necessary, practical barriers to attendance at groups (e.g., transport, effort, and cost), and a dislike of group activities. Implications: Because many older people reject the idea that they are at risk of falling, the uptake of strength and balance training programs may be promoted more effectively by maximizing and emphasizing their multiple positive benefits for health and well-being. A personal invitation from a health professional to participate is important, and it also may be helpful to provide home-based programs for those who dislike or find it difficult to attend groups.

Background: Studies suggest that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used in the European Union (EU). We systematically reviewed data, reporting research quality and the prevalence of CAM use by citizens in Europe; what it is used for, and why. Methods: We searched for general population surveys of CAM use by using Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), Cochrane Library (1989 to September 2010), CINAHL (1989 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), PsychINFO including PsychARTICLES (1989 to September 2010), Web of Science (1989 to September 2010), AMED (1985 to September 2010), and CISCOM (1989 to September 2010). Additional studies were identified through experts and grey literature. Cross-sectional, population-based or cohort studies reporting CAM use in any EU language were included. Data were extracted and reviewed by 2 authors using a pre-designed extraction protocol with quality assessment instrument. Results: 87 studies were included. Inter-rater reliability was good (kappa = 0.8). Study methodology and quality of reporting were poor. The prevalence of CAM use varied widely within and across EU countries (0.3–86%). Prevalence data demonstrated substantial heterogeneity unrelated to report quality; therefore, we were unable to pool data for meta-analysis; our report is narrative and based on descriptive statistics. Herbal medicine was most commonly reported. CAM users were mainly women. The most common reason for use was dissatisfaction with conventional care; CAM was widely used for musculoskeletal problems. Conclusion: CAM prevalence across the EU is problematic to estimate because studies are generally poor and heterogeneous. A consistent definition of CAM, a core set of CAMs with country-specific variations and a standardised reporting strategy to enhance the accuracy of data pooling would improve reporting quality.

CONTEXT: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by pediatric patients with cancer, but the actual frequency of CAM use is undetermined.OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review we summarize the current evidence on the prevalence of CAM use in pediatric patients with cancer and assess the reported quality of included studies.METHODS: We systematically searched 6 major electronic databases, reference lists of existing reviews, and personal files. We included full articles about primary research studies (without language restriction) that reported the prevalence of CAM use if all or a defined subsample of participants were pediatric patients with cancer. Detailed information regarding methods and results was extracted from the original articles. A quality-assessment tool was rigorously developed on the basis of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and used to assess reported study quality. Formal tests of interrater agreement were conducted.RESULTS: We included 28 studies with survey data (collected from 1975 to 2005) from 3526 children. In 20 studies with 2871 participants, the prevalence of any CAM use (since cancer diagnosis) ranged from 6% to 91%; considerable heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was mixed and not correlated with CAM prevalence. Herbal remedies were the most popular CAM modality, followed by diets/nutrition and faith-healing. Commonly reported reasons for CAM use included to help cure or fight the child's cancer, symptomatic relief, and support of ongoing use of conventional therapy. There was little evidence of an association between CAM use and patients' sociodemographic characteristics.CONCLUSIONS: Many pediatric patients with cancer use CAM. It is important that pediatricians be aware of this fact and encourage open communication with patients and their parents. Using standardized survey methods and CAM definitions in future studies could improve their quality and help generate comparable data. Our quality-assessment tool could prove valuable for other reviews of prevalence studies.