What do you think is an aspect of TCIM that is currently being overlooked by the field? 

LA: Implementation research and real-world application of TCIM is still an underexplored area. While there is growing evidence on the efficacy of traditional and complementary interventions, comparatively little attention is paid to how these interventions can be systematically integrated into existing health systems, scaled, and sustained over time. 

CU: Communication between the scientific community and TCIM practitioners can be fragmented, hindering context-sensitive evaluation frameworks. Conventional clinical trials often miss TCIM’s nuanced, individualized nature, overlooking key dimensions of care. Research underscores the value of users’ subjective experiences and perceived outcomes, pointing to the need for evaluation models emphasizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Identifying and validating meaningful PROs could bridge gaps among researchers, practitioners, and users, strengthening evidence and supporting responsible TCIM integration.

MD: Equity and structural contexts. Too often TCIM focuses on individual techniques without enough emphasis on how social determinants, access and cultural adaptation shape outcomes at population level. 

AS: Health economics is often overlooked in the field, particularly due to the lack of workforce.  

AB: Since I'm a biostatistician, I'm always thinking about the math. Given the challenges we face in TCIM study design - such as how to handle blinding in acupuncture or exercise trials - we need more innovations in statistical methods. These methods should be adaptable to unique study designs and capable of handling complex meta-analyses. 

JYN: I think we, as a community, still don’t talk enough about the need to develop new research methods, or thoughtfully adapt existing ones, that truly fit the unique characteristics of TCIM. That’s not to say that there aren’t excellent methodologists in our community, because there are, but rather, a lot of methodological education doesn’t reach everyone. Many of our current approaches were designed for conventional biomedical interventions and don’t always capture the complexity or individualized nature of TCIM practices. Strengthening our methodological toolkit would help us generate more meaningful and applicable evidence. It’s an area the field could benefit from prioritizing more intentionally. 

What was your favourite session, talk or activity for you at the conference? 

CU: Attending the congress and engaging with practitioners and experts in TCIM has been truly eye-opening. It offers a richly multidimensional perspective on how TCIM is developed and adopted across different contexts. The event provides a valuable space to share concerns from our respective work, exchange experiences, and collaboratively explore solutions. 

LA: One session that really stood out for me was the panel on the WHO Traditional Medicine Global Library (TMGL). I loved how it combined big-picture vision with concrete examples, showing both the goal of creating a global TCIM knowledge library and the practical steps being taken, like country pages, thematic pages, and evidence maps. It was inspiring to see how traditional and complementary knowledge can be aggregated in a meaningful, respectful way while remaining rigorous. 

AB: Listening in to Susan Weiland (director of Cochrane's Complementary Medicine) speak about Cochrane's perspective.  

JYN: There were honestly too many highlights to choose from to pick a favourite! More than anything, it was incredibly meaningful to attend this congress in South America for the first time. Connecting with so many wonderful people from CABSIN and seeing the enthusiasm of the regional community made the experience particularly special. The sense of energy and collaboration really stood out. 

MD: The panels on implementation - particularly the talks about integrating TCIM approaches into primary care and health systems. Hearing concrete examples of scale-up (and the barriers teams faced) was energizing. 

AS: I enjoyed a lot about the conference, but my unexpected highlight was the session by Anne Gimalac about the approach to research literacy education being employed at the naturopathic university in Lausanne, Switzerland. 

Did anything challenge your current thinking or approach to your work? 

CU: One thought-provoking aspect is the debate about the role of "science" in shaping TCIM. Is scientific validation a limiting force, constraining TCIM’s diversity and spirit? Or an empowering tool that strengthens its credibility and integration? From a scientific perspective, we must recognize TCIM’s uniqueness and diversity. When interpreting emerging scientific findings in TCIM, we should avoid imposing a one-size-fits-all framework and instead embrace methodologies that honor the complexity and richness of these traditions.

MD: A reminder that we still need stronger implementation research and pragmatic trials to show how to adapt TCIM interventions across diverse health systems without losing fidelity. 

JYN: Several sessions reminded me how challenging the question of standardization is within TCIM. Not all therapies are straightforward to study, and there’s still no consensus on how, or even whether, they should be standardized. This reinforced for me that there likely isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that we need flexible, nuanced approaches to research design. It’s an ongoing conversation the field needs to continue grappling as we move forward. 

LA: Yes, the discussions on standardizing clinical evidence for TCIM challenged me to rethink research methodologies. While randomized controlled trials are essential, several speakers emphasized that overly rigid study designs might overlook the holistic benefits of traditional practices. This pushed me to consider more flexible, culturally sensitive research frameworks that still maintain scientific rigor but better capture the real-world impact of TCIM interventions. 

What were the trends in TCIM that stood out for you across the sessions you attended? 

JYN: A major trend I noticed was the growing emphasis on digital health and artificial intelligence. Across several sessions, there was clear enthusiasm for exploring how such technologies work and can enhance personalized care and improve the delivery of TCIM interventions. The discussions went beyond novelty; there was thoughtful dialogue about practical implementation, ethical safeguards, and how these technologies can complement the human-centered nature of TCIM practice. It was encouraging to see that the community is not only open to innovation but is also approaching it critically and collaboratively. 

MD: Digital delivery and hybrid models, greater cross-disciplinary dialogue with public health and implementation science, and increasing attention to measurement, both patient-reported outcomes and biological markers, are emerging as key priorities. 

LA: I noticed a strong focus on interdisciplinary collaboration, bringing together insights from medicine, public health, pharmacology, and digital health. There was also a clear push toward global standardization, especially around education, practice, and regulation. And it was inspiring to see examples of TCIM being successfully integrated into primary care and community health programs, particularly in underserved regions, showing how these practices can become part of mainstream healthcare. 

AB: I'm really passionate about evidence synthesis (systematic reviews & meta-analyses). There were multiple presentations about evidence maps, and I think those are an exciting new tool in evidence synthesis that seems to be catching on. I am excited to see how the field grows and changes.  

AS: I got a sense of the ongoing lack of coordination of research efforts, but also a growing momentum due to the WHO activities for the field. 

CU:  One of the most striking trends across the TCIM sessions I attended was the evolving landscape of regulatory decision-making. Regulation safeguards public health and shapes conditions for TCIM to contribute meaningfully to population health. As highlighted in the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy, a key objective is to support safe and effective TCIM through appropriate regulatory measures. However, applying regulatory science to TCIM remains underexplored. There is a clear need for frameworks tailored to TCIM’s diversity, cultural grounding, and holistic nature. Advancing regulatory science could ensure TCIM is evaluated, supported, and scaled safely and contextually. This area deserves greater attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

How do you feel publishing can better support the field of TCIM? 

AS: Through providing a continued commitment to high quality research reporting. 

CU: I believe research and publishing serve as vital communication channels across TCIM sectors. Yet, what gets published often shows only part of the picture, highlighting the need for feedback loops and bilateral communication among researchers, practitioners, users, and policymakers. One idea is a commentary platform for lay reflections on findings, with researchers responding to studies incorporating user perspectives - fostering dynamic, inclusive dialogue. Publishing mechanisms remain important but should be more innovative and open to amplify diverse voices and bridge evidence generation with real-world relevance.

LA: Publishing can play a key role by encouraging open-access dissemination, so knowledge is widely available, highlighting both positive and negative findings to build a more complete evidence base, and promoting methodological transparency while respecting the unique nature of TCIM research.  

JYN: Publishing could better support TCIM by addressing the issue of increasingly high article processing charges, which can create real barriers for researchers, especially those in low-resource settings. Ensuring that editors and peer reviewers are treated fairly and supported appropriately is also essential, given how much the scholarly ecosystem relies on their unpaid efforts. Publishers have a responsibility to take better care of the very people without whom their operations would cease to exist. These are areas where thoughtful change could really make a difference. 

MD: Publishers should adopt equitable APC policies; sliding scales, automatic waivers, or funded fee-waiver programs for researchers from low- and middle-income countries. For many Brazilian researchers there is no dedicated budget for publication, and an APC can represent the equivalent of a month’s salary, which makes open-access publishing effectively inaccessible. Addressing this through waivers, transformative agreements with institutions, and partnerships with funders would make publishing fairer and help ensure a truly global representation of TCIM research. 

Was there a moment during the conference that reminded you why you do what you do? 

LA: The technical visits to Integrative Health Units within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) were especially memorable. Seeing TCIM practices offered in real-world public health settings highlighted the tangible impact on patient wellbeing, especially in underserved communities. It reminded me that my work is about turning knowledge into real-world improvements in people’s health and bridging traditional medicine with modern healthcare systems. 

MD: Informal conversations with practitioners from different countries. Hearing how small, context-sensitive adaptations changed people’s lives reminded me why I do this work. 

AS: Lots of little moments having conversations with colleagues from around the globe, all of whom were excited by the potential for TCIM to solve global health challenges. 

JYN: Absolutely. Speaking with both those in their early- and senior-career stages (and everyone in between) who are deeply engaged with open science, meta-research, and AI in TCIM was incredibly inspiring. It reaffirmed my belief that our field is moving in an exciting direction, one grounded in transparency, rigour, and innovation. I was especially encouraged by the enthusiasm of early-career researchers; their curiosity, creativity, and commitment to improving research quality and impact give me great confidence in the future of the TCIM research community. These conversations reminded me why advancing the integrity, accessibility, and inclusivity of TCIM research continues to be such meaningful work. 

AB: I was amazed at how many different institutes, working groups, universities etc., had come together to make the conference happen. That spirit of collaboration was really encouraging! 

CU: Much of my work focuses on unpacking the contextual factors that help us understand the why: why users and providers behave in certain ways, and the what: what actually works to support the safe and orderly development of TCIM. Being part of such a multidimensional exchange at the congress reminded me that these questions are far from fully addressed. The field is constantly evolving, as are the needs of the communities we serve. This experience has reinforced an important realization: we are not only trying to understand what is happening in TCIM, but we must ask how we can take meaningful steps forward. How do we actively shape the development and integration of TCIM in ways that are purposeful, responsive, and grounded in real-world contexts? These questions are far from settled and exploring them will be a journey worth many more years of research. 

Interview prepared and conducted by Senior Editor, Dr Anastasia Widyadari. Our sincere thanks to all the Editorial Board Members who contributed: Prof Amie Steel, Prof Marcelo Demarzo, Dr Lin Ang, Prof Carolina Ung, Prof Jeremy Y Ng and Dr Alisha Bruton.  

BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies is looking forward to attending the next World Congress on Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine. Thank you and congratulations to all the organisers and societies for a successful congress.