Scoping review finds TCIM women's health literature dominated by biomedical translation

Women's health care remains largely shaped by biomedical paradigms that prioritize reproductive functions and physiological outcomes, often sidelining subjective, social, and cultural dimensions. Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) is frequently presented as an alternative, yet its incorporation into women's health tends to follow biomedical logics of validation. The aim of this scoping review was to analyze how TCIM in women's health is configured in indexed scientific publications, combining Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods with an interpretive lens from Cultural Studies and the Expanded Circuit of Culture. Because this approach analyzes scientific literature as a cultural artifact rather than aggregating clinical efficacy data, its application for establishing classical biomedical guidelines is limited; however, it provides a rigorous critical interpretation of the field. Searches were conducted in ten national and international databases with no language or year limits; of 2,474 records identified, 1,079 met the inclusion criteria. Data were mapped quantitatively and qualitatively, treating articles as cultural artifacts. Four discursive configurations emerged: “practice efficiency and efficacy” studies (45.6%; n = 492), focused on safety and physiological outcomes and often reducing complex systems to isolated techniques; descriptive and prevalence studies (41.5%; n = 448), which portrayed TCIM use mainly through sociodemographic profiles and consumer behavior; a category addressing institutionalization and methodological challenges (6.8%; n = 74), examining the structural and epistemological conditions for TCIM recognition within formal health systems; and a smaller group centered on emancipatory care and subjective experience (6.1%; n = 65), foregrounding autonomy, therapeutic bonding, and ancestral knowledges. Overall, the field is strongly dominated by biomedical translation, which sanitizes sensorial, spiritual, and relational dimensions and upholds epistemic hierarchies, yet counter-hegemonic narratives persist at the margins, indicating possibilities for epistemic pluralism and more emancipatory approaches to women's health.