Systematic review summarizes evidence-based indicators in chronic non-communicable diseases, indicating effective management strategies.
Background and Aim: Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a major global health threat, accounting for 88.5% of all deaths in China. Although integrated Chinese and Western medicine health management has demonstrated unique advantages in the prevention and control of chronic diseases, there is currently a lack of a scientific, effective, and operational evaluation indicator system. This study aims to summarise the evidence-based indicators of the implementation effects of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine health management for chronic diseases, providing an evidence-based foundation for grassroots practice. Materials and Methods: This study systematically searched relevant domestic and international databases and websites from October 2014 to September 2024 to include literature on guidelines, evidence summaries, expert consensus, systematic evaluations, and clinical original studies. AGREE II and the Australian JBI Evidence Synthesis Manual were used to evaluate the quality of the literature, and the evidence was classified according to the JBI Evidence Pregrading and Recommendation Level System. Results: A total of 35 articles were included, and 29 indicators were extracted, covering seven themes, including community TCM resources, patient self-management efficacy, TCM health service participation, effectiveness of collaborative management between TCM and Western medicine, patient knowledge, physiological indicators, and patient satisfaction. Conclusion: This study summarizes the best evidence on the effectiveness of the implementation of integrated Chinese and Western medicine health management for chronic diseases, constructs a systematic assessment framework, and provides a theoretical basis and practical tool for promoting the integration of Chinese medicine into chronic disease management at the grassroots level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: