To describe the prevalence and characteristics of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) practice and product use by the population of the UK providing up-to-date data on the landscape of TCIM use in the UK.

A cross-sectional online survey, administered using the Qualtrics platform, among adults (aged 18 years and over) residing in the UK (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland). Data were collected between May and October 2024. The 40-item instrument covered four domains: demographics, health status, use of health products and practices, and use of health services. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise survey responses, and ² tests were applied to assess associations between participant characteristics and TCIM use. Backwards stepwise logistic regression was conducted to identify predictors of TCIM use across four outcome categories (p≤0.05).

The sample (n=1559) was broadly representative of the UK population. Prevalence of any TCIM use over a 12-month period was 65.9% with 19.1% consulting a TCIM practitioner and 63.3% using any TCIM product or practice. Bodywork therapists (massage therapists 9.4%, chiropractors 7.9%, yoga teachers 5.0%) and homeopaths (4.1%) were the most commonly consulted TCIM practitioners and Anthroposophic doctors were the least commonly consulted (2.1%). Among TCIM products, vitamin and mineral supplements were the most commonly used (37.3%) and relaxation or meditation practices were reported by 19.4% of respondents. TCIM users were more likely to be female, identify as Asian or Black, have a chronic disease diagnosis, report good health, possess private health insurance, have a higher education level, be employed (or seeking employment) and sometimes experience financial management difficulties.

There is substantial use of TCIM across the UK adult population and there is a need for more research on integrating TCIM into mainstream healthcare and the National Health Service. Clear strategies are necessary to enhance communication between TCIM and conventional healthcare providers, ensure patient safety and promote person-centred, coordinated models of care.

Process evaluation provides insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines the protocol for a process evaluation embedded in a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomised clinical trial of incremental-start haemodialysis (HD) versus conventional HD delivered to patients starting chronic dialysis (the TwoPlus Study). The trial will simultaneously assess the effectiveness of incremental-start HD in real-world settings and the implementation strategies needed to successfully integrate this intervention into routine practice. This manuscript describes the rationale and methods used to capture how incremental-start HD is implemented across settings and the factors influencing its implementation success or failure within this trial.

We will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks to inform process evaluation. Mixed methods include surveys conducted with treating providers (physicians) and dialysis personnel (nurses and dialysis administrators); semi-structured interviews with patient participants, caregivers of patient participants, treating providers (physicians and advanced practice practitioners), dialysis personnel (nurses, dieticians and social workers); and focus group meetings with study investigators and stakeholder partners. Data will be collected on the following implementation determinants: (a) organisational readiness to change, intervention acceptability and appropriateness; (b) inner setting characteristics underlying barriers and facilitators to the adoption of HD intervention at the enrollment centres; (c) external factors that mediate implementation; (d) adoption; (e) reach; (f) fidelity, to assess adherence to serial timed urine collection and HD treatment schedule; and (g) sustainability, to assess barriers and facilitators to maintaining intervention. Qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed iteratively and triangulated following a convergent parallel and pragmatic approach. Mixed methods analysis will use qualitative data to lend insight to quantitative findings. Process evaluation is important to understand factors influencing trial outcomes and identify potential contextual barriers and facilitators for the potential implementation of incremental-start HD into usual workflows in varied outpatient dialysis clinics and clinical practices. The process evaluation will help interpret and contextualise the trial clinical outcomes’ findings.

The study protocol was approved by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB). Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

NCT05828823.