Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in England: results from a national survey: CAM use in England: A national survey

Hunt, K. J., Coelho, H. F., Wider, B., Perry, R., Hung, S. K., Terry, R., Ernst, E.·2010·International Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, recent data on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are available. However, in England, there is a paucity of such data. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of CAM use in England. DESIGN: Data were obtained from the Health Survey for England 2005, a national household survey that included questions on CAM use. We used binary logistic regression modelling to explore whether demographic, health and lifestyle factors predict CAM use. RESULTS: Data were available for 7630 respondents (household response rate 71%). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of CAM use were 44.0% and 26.3% respectively; 12.1% had consulted a practitioner in the preceding 12 months. Massage, aromatherapy and acupuncture were the most commonly used therapies. Twenty-nine percent of respondents taking prescription drugs had used CAM in the last 12 months. Women (OR 0.491, 95% CI: 0.419, 0.577), university educated respondents (OR 1.296, 95% CI: 1.088, 1.544), those suffering from anxiety or depression (OR 1.341, 95% CI: 1.074, 1.674), people with poorer mental health (on GHQ: OR 1.062, 95% CI 1.026, 1.100) and lower levels of perceived social support (1.047, 95% CI: 1.008, 1.088), people consuming ≥ 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day (OR 1.327, 95% CI: 1.124, 1.567) were significantly more likely to use CAM. CONCLUSION: Complementary and alternative medicine use in England remains substantial, even amongst those taking prescription drugs. These data serve as a valuable reminder to medical practitioners to ask patients about CAM use and should be routinely collected to facilitate prioritisation of the research agenda in CAM.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02484.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Hunt, K. J., Coelho, H. F., Wider, B., Perry, R., Hung, S. K., Terry, R., & Ernst, E.
Venue
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Published
2010-08-04
Volume
64
Issue
11
Pages
1496-1502
ISSN
1368-5031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1584171701
Cited by
278
References
22
FWCI
42.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complementary and alternative medicine use in England: results from a national survey: CAM use in England: A national survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02484.x
The paper
Hunt, K. J., Coelho, H. F., Wider, B., Perry, R., Hung, S. K., Terry, R., & Ernst, E. (2010). Complementary and alternative medicine use in England: results from a national survey: CAM use in England: A national survey. International Journal of Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02484.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.