Background: Complementary and integrative health approaches (CIHAs) encompass a diverse range of practices that complement conventional medicine to promote health and wellbeing, and to support disease management. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the utilization of CIHAs in the United States (US), and numerous studies have demonstrated increases in CIHA use over time. A recent study documented the prevalence of CIHA use for pain management among US adults in 2022. However, to our knowledge, the prevalence of CIHA use to restore overall health has not been assessed in the past decade. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the use of CIHAs for health restoration among US adults and children in 2022.

Methods: We used data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a nationally representative, cross-sectional household interview survey conducted in-person and by telephone. The response rate was 47.7% (n=27,651) for adults and 45.8% (n=7,464) for children (<18 years of age). The use of CIHAs for health restoration was defined as participants who reported the use of chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, naturopathic, meditation, guided imagery or progressive relaxation, or yoga approaches to restore overall health in the past 12 months. Chi square and t-tests were used to compare characteristics between those who used CIHAs for the restoration of health versus those who did not.

Results: Study results indicate that approximately 28% of US adults and 10% of US children used CIHAs specifically for health restoration in 2022. The most frequently used CIHAs for health restoration among adults were meditation (12.5%), yoga (12.2%), and massage therapy (8.1%), while among children, yoga (4.9%), meditation (3.5%) and chiropractic care (2.9%) were the most frequently used. The patterns of utilization varied significantly by demographic factors and among individuals with certain disease diagnoses. Specifically, adult use of CIHAs for health restoration was positively associated with slightly lower age, female sex, higher education level, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, and higher household income level, as well as the following diagnoses: cancer, long COVID, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and chronic fatigue syndrome. The characteristics associated with CIHA use for health restoration among children were similar to those for adults (i.e., use was associated with female sex, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, and higher family income level).

Discussion: Understanding the choice of different CIHAs, as well as the reasons for using each approach, will help to clarify health-seeking behaviors. Overall, the characteristics of those who use CIHAs for health restoration purposes were similar to the reported characteristics of those who use CIHAs for any purpose, with significant differences in use by age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income level, and region in 2022. Examination of regional patterns of CIHA availability and use, as well as patient and practitioner attitudes might provide additional insights into potential disparities in complementary and integrative health care. Study limitations include possible recall bias, the use of cross-sectional data, and a limited selection of CIHAs included in the NHIS (e.g., Ayurveda, Tai Chi, and other approaches were not included).

Background: Long COVID is a serious, complex condition that has affected the lives of millions of people globally. Complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches offer a wide range of potential therapies for the management of Long COVID symptoms. However, there is limited information available about the utilization of CIH approaches among Long COVID patients.

Methods: Nationally representative cross-sectional data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, response rate 47.7%, n=27,651) were used to investigate prevalence and predictors of CIH approach use in the past 12 months among individuals who experienced Long COVID. The 12-month prevalence of CIH approach use was descriptively analyzed for those with Long COVID versus those without using chi-squared tests or unpaired t-tests. Independent predictors of CIH approach use among individuals with Long COVID were analyzed using a stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results: A weighted total of 17,610,801 US adults (19.7%) who had a confirmed case of COVID-19 developed Long COVID symptoms. A greater proportion of individuals with Long COVID (44.4%) than those without (40.9%) used CIH approaches in the past 12 months. The most used approaches were meditation, yoga, and massage therapy. CIH approach use in those with Long COVID was significantly associated with younger age, female sex, higher education level, having health insurance coverage, higher household income level, receiving three or more COVID-19 vaccination doses, ever having asthma, and ever having an anxiety or depression diagnosis.

Conclusions: Long COVID represents a major challenge for patients, health care providers, health care systems, economies, and global public health. CIH approaches may play an important role in symptom management for some patients, and additional research is needed to identify which modalities are most effective. Patients and health care providers may benefit from better information about the available options for treatment.

Background: Accessing healthcare resources often poses challenges for Latinos. Integrative health (IH), blending conventional and alternative methods, emerges as a culturally relevant and practical avenue for managing chronic conditions. This research seeks to explore the usage patterns of integrative medicine among Latinos experiencing severe pain. It offers insights into their preferences and highlighting IH as a potential solution to address healthcare disparities within this demographic.

Methods: Data from the National Latino and Asian American Survey (NLAAS, first wave) were used. We identified participants experiencing severe pain and compared their use of various integrative health (IH) options across Latino subgroups (Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, and All other Latinos) using chi-square tests. This analysis revealed group differences in IH use. Logistic regression was then employed to pinpoint specific IH utilization most significantly associated with pain management within this Latino population with severe pain.

Results: 508 Latino subjects reported severe chronic back pain. Of these, 208 (41%) used alternative therapies. Chi-square analysis revealed statistically significant variations (p<0.1 for Puerto Ricans, p<0.05 for Mexicans) in the use of integrative medicine across Latino subgroups. Logistic regression identified key pain management preferences among Latinos with chronic pain, including massage therapy, exercise programs, herbal remedies, and spiritual practices. These findings underscore the critical role of cultural competency in healthcare delivery for Latino populations. Understanding these preferences is paramount for healthcare providers to develop and implement culturally sensitive and effective pain management interventions, thereby promoting equitable access and optimal outcomes for Latino patients experiencing chronic pain.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that integrative medicine is crucial in pain management for Latino populations. The findings highlight the importance of IH beyond conventional medicine for Latinos. Given the increasing interest in integrative health approaches, further research is warranted to explore the specific mechanisms by which these practices contribute to pain management in Latino communities.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapy use, and to compare predictors and patterns of use in those with a recent and non-recent diagnosis of cancer, and no previous cancer diagnosis.

Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2022 National Health Interview Survey to derive US national prevalence estimates for the utilization of any CIH therapy. Therapies were also classified into three main categories: manipulative body-based therapies (chiropractor, acupuncture, massage), creative therapies (music therapy, art therapy), and mind-body therapies (meditation, guided imagery, yoga). Additionally, prevalence and reasons for use (e.g., pain management or general health improvement) were described by cancer type. Regression models identified predictors of any CIH therapy use among all participants as well as within subgroups categorized by cancer status (recent diagnosis within the past two years, non-recent diagnosis, and no past diagnosis of cancer).

Results: Among 26,523 participants, prevalence of any therapy use was similar amongst individuals with recent cancer (40.17%), non-recent cancer (37.75%), and no cancer diagnosis (37.93%), but manipulative body-based therapies were more prevalent in the recent diagnosis group when compared to non-recent and no cancer groups (23.62%, 19.68%, 19.18%, respectively, p=.02). Mind-body therapies were mostly used for general health, whereas manipulative therapies were primarily used for both pain and general health. Importantly, assessment of creative therapy use (i.e., music and art therapy) was included for the first time in this national survey, however, prevalence was low and reasons for use were not assessed. Overall CIH usage varied by cancer type, with breast (42.03%), skin (41.18%), and gynecological (40.81%) cancers showing the highest rates of use. Adjusted models found higher odds of use among recent (OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.13,1.66) and non-recent (OR = 1.14, 95% CI=1.01,1.28) cancer diagnoses compared to those without. Subgroup analyses by diagnosis status revealed that female sex, younger age, depression, self-rated health, higher education, and income were significant predictors of CIH therapy use.

Conclusion: In this study, we present an important snapshot of the landscape of CIH therapy use in cancer survivors. We found that while prevalence of CIH therapy use was similar by cancer status, recent cancer survivors were more likely to use CIH therapies after adjusting for other factors. However, there may be inequalities in access to these therapies, as use remains highest amongst those with higher socioeconomic conditions. This may underscore the need to bridge the gap in access to these types of therapies, regardless of socioeconomic status.