As an academic researcher, Jeremy Y. Ng, MSc, PhD has collaborated with principal investigators in both Canada and internationally, some of whom have been ranked as the top 1% highly cited researchers in the world. Jeremy started his career studying traditional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (TCAIM) over a decade ago. In addition to TCIM, his additional research interests include meta-research, open science, bibliometrics and artificial intelligence. Jeremy is an experienced research methodologist having expertise with (but not limited to): systematic, scoping and narrative reviews; reporting and clinical practice guidelines; consumer health information quality assessment; qualitative interviews, focus groups, and synthesis; health policy analysis; Delphi and cross-sectional surveys; and bibliometric analyses. To date, he has conducted studies that have specifically investigated: 1) the quantity and quality of TCAIM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines for a wide range of diseases/conditions, 2) the quality of TCAIM consumer health information across web-resources for a wide range of diseases/conditions, 3) patient/provider attitudes towards various TCAIM therapies, 4) the regulation of CAIM therapies/providers, and 5) the quantity and quality of global output of CAIM research. More recently, he has also become interested in, and initiated research, in the field of meta-research and open science, and more recently seeks to a develop a roadmap for assessing and improving the quality of research via meta-research and open science practices, within the field of TCAIM as a proof-of-concept for other research fields. To learn more about Jeremy’s contributions to these bodies of research, please see his publications and presentations.
Jeremy’s Academic Profiles
Google Scholar | ORCiD | Web of Science | PubMed | ResearchGate | Scopus |
Traditional, Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine
Traditional, complementary, alternative and integrative medicine (TCAIM) has a wide variety of definitions.
The World Health Organization provides these definitions as follows [1]:
• Traditional medicine: “Traditional medicine has a long history. It is the sum total of the knowledge, skill, and practices based on the theories, beliefs, and experiences indigenous to different cultures, whether explicable or not, used in the maintenance of health as well as in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of physical and mental illness.”
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine: “The terms “complementary medicine” or “alternative medicine” refer to a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country’s own tradition or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health-care system. They are used interchangeably with traditional medicine in some countries.”
According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), a centre of the National Institutes of Health of the United States Federal Government [2]:
• “If a non-mainstream practice is used together with conventional medicine, it’s considered “complementary.”
• “If a non-mainstream practice is used in place of conventional medicine, it’s considered “alternative.”
• “Integrative health care often brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way.”
It should be noted that TCAIM is an umbrella term used to describe a number of different therapies that originate from different parts of the world. Generally, they can be categorized into the following five categories [3]:
1. Biologically Based Therapies (e.g., diet, natural health products)
2. Energy Therapies (e.g., acupuncture, reiki)
3. Manipulative and Body-Based Practices (e.g., chiropractic, osteopathic, cupping, moxibustion)
4. Mind-Body Medicine (e.g., guided imagery, mindfulness and meditation)
5. Whole Medical Systems (e.g., traditional medicine, naturopathy, homeopathy)
Why is the study of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine important?
There is probably no field of research/medicine more controversial than that of traditional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine, with there being no shortage of critics. Despite this, the greatest justification for research in this area is the fact that large proportions of patients across virtually all countries, demographics, and disease categories use TCAIM [4]. In Canada, approximately 80% of the population has used TCAIM before [5], and internationally 88% of World Health Organization member states have acknowledged their use of TCAIM (including traditional medicine) [4]. Furthermore, patients often fail to disclose TCAIM use to their primary healthcare providers [6], the latter of whom are generally poorly trained to advise on these therapies [7].
Meta-research and Open Science
The definitions of meta-research and open science are provided as follows:
• Meta-research (or Metascience) [8]: “The scientific study of science itself with the aim to describe, explain, evaluate and/or improve scientific practices. Meta-science typically investigates scientific methods, analyses, the reporting and evaluation of data, the reproducibility and replicability of research results, and research incentives.”
• Open Science [9]: “An umbrella term reflecting the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds, where appropriate, should be openly accessible, transparent, rigorous, reproducible, replicable, accumulative, and inclusive, all which are considered fundamental features of the scientific endeavour. Open science consists of principles and behaviors that promote transparent, credible, reproducible, and accessible science. Open science has six major aspects: open data, open methodology, open source, open access, open peer review, and open educational resources.”
Why is the study of meta-research and open science important?
The study of meta-research and open science is crucial for improving the quality and reliability of scientific research. Meta-research helps identify and address issues such as biases and methodological flaws, enhancing the overall reproducibility of studies and preventing publication bias [10]. Open science practices, such as transparent reporting and open access to data, contribute to increased collaboration, innovation, and trust in the scientific community. These approaches optimize research practices, making research outputs more accessible and fostering a culture of transparency [11,12]. Additionally, meta-research and open science inform policy and funding decisions by providing insights into effective research strategies and priorities [13]. Overall, these efforts aim to build a more robust and trustworthy scientific foundation.
References
[1] World Health Organization (WHO). Traditional, complementary and integrative Medicine. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/traditional-complementary-and-integrative-medicine
[2] National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What’s in a name? Available from: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name
[3] National Cancer Institute. Complementary and alternative medicine. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam
[4] World Health Organization. WHO Global report on traditional and complementary medicine 2019. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978924151536
[5] Esmail N. Complementary and alternative medicine: Use and public attitudes 1997, 2006, and 2016. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2017. Available from: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/complementary-and-alternative-medicine-use-and-public-attitudes-1997-2006-and-2016
[6] Foley H, Steel A, Cramer H, Wardle J, Adams J. Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2019 Feb 7;9(1):1573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38279-8
[7] Aveni E, Bauer B, Ramelet AS, Decosterd I, Ballabeni P, Bonvin E, Rodondi PY. Healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge of complementary medicine in an academic center. PloS One. 2017 Sep 29;12(9):e0184979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184979
[8] Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training. Meta-science or meta-research. Available at: https://forrt.org/glossary/meta-science-or-meta-research/
[9] Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training. Open science. Available at: https://forrt.org/glossary/open-science/
[10] Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology. 2015 Oct 2;13(10):e1002264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264
[11] Allen C, Mehler DM. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. PLoS Biology. 2019 May 1;17(5):e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246
[12] Crüwell S, van Doorn J, Etz A, Makel MC, Moshontz H, Niebaum JC, Orben A, Parsons S, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M. Seven easy steps to open science. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 2019 Dec 20. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387
[13] McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, McDougall D, Nosek BA, Ram K, Soderberg CK, Spies JR. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife. 2016 Jul 7;5:e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
Jeremy Y. Ng, MSc, PhD 