The extraordinary complexities in defining complementary medicine

The role of scientific reasoning and religious beliefs in use of complementary and alternative medicine

BACKGROUND

While previous research has shown that trust in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is linked with other unfounded beliefs (e.g. paranormal phenomena or pharmaceutical conspiracies) and that analytic thinking can help alter these beliefs, the role of the ability to evaluate evidence as a protective factor has not been established yet.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design with a hundred participants was used with self-report data from questionnaires and performance test. The dependent variables were the belief in CAM and use of CAM. Predictor variables were scientific reasoning (measured by Scientific Reasoning Scale), critical thinking dispositions (measured by Critical Thinking Disposition Instrument; UF-EMI), religious beliefs (measured by Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire), gender and age.

RESULTS

Scientific reasoning and religious faith independently predicted belief in alternative medicine, while the role of scientific reasoning in actual reported use of CAM diminished after religious faith, gender and age were introduced to the model.

CONCLUSION

The results highlight the fact that it is not enough to appeal to the general critical thinking of people, but we need to teach them some practical skills that would help them to evaluate evidence in other, health-unrelated, contexts as well.

Barriers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine professions in Australia and New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite the growing international popularity and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the uptake of evidence-based practice (EBP) in CAM has been slow. This cross-sectional survey aimed to further our understanding of the factors impacting EBP uptake in CAM.

METHODS

The 32-item oBSTACLES instrument was administered online using the SurveyMonkey™platform. The survey evaluated barriers to both the conduct and application of research among CAM practitioners and researchers, from multiple CAM disciplines across Australia and New Zealand. Participants were recruited via practice-based research networks, professional associations, CAM educational institutions, CAM research centres, pertinent product manufacturers and social media platforms. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eighty-two CAM stakeholders responded to the survey. Barrier items were divided into two interlinked constructs, "capacity" and "culture". Capacity related to issues regarding access, competency, bias, incentives, and time, whereas culture related to values and complex systems. Under capacity, the greatest proportion of participants (>70 %) agreed that access was a barrier to the conduct and application of research, including lack of funding, institutional support, research training and collaborations. In terms of culture, the majority of participants (>60 %) agreed that values were a barrier to research conduct and application, including limited undergraduate research opportunities and diverse views of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this research suggest a multitude of barriers negatively impact the conduct and application of research in CAM. Insights gained from this research will be instrumental in developing actionable strategies aimed at mitigating the impact of these barriers to improve research engagement in CAM.

Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There has been a considerable increase in the number of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) practitioners over the past 20 years and in some jurisdictions are estimated to outnumber general practitioners. Despite this globally significant role, it is apparent that worldwide not all T&CM professions operate under adequate accountability and regulatory oversight for maintaining public protection. To date there has been no published systematic examination of stakeholder opinions regarding regulated and unregulated T&CM occupations. In response, this review aims to investigate, describe, and analyse attitudes held by a range of stakeholder groups towards the regulation of T&CM professions.

METHODS

A database search of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted for original research published between 2000 and 2020 on stakeholder opinions regarding the regulation of T&CM professions.

RESULTS

Sixty studies across 15 countries reported on the views of six health care stakeholder groups: consumers, T&CM practitioners, conventional medicine practitioners, professional associations, education providers, and policy-makers. Across all stakeholder groups there was between 15% and 95% (median 61%) support for, and 1% to 57% (median 14%) opposition to the regulation of various T&CM professions. The main reasons for supporting regulation included providing greater public protection, raising training and practice standards, establishing title protection, and gaining acceptance from conventional medicine providers. Concerns regarding regulation included potential restrictions to practice, misappropriation of practice, and medical oversight of T&CM practitioners. Few studies canvassed the views of professional associations (n = 6), education providers (n = 2), and policy-makers (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be broad support for the regulation of T&CM professions, although there was wide variation in attitudes as to how this should be applied. Further research, with a particular focus on policy-makers, education providers, and professional associations, is critical to inform appropriate health policy and practice recommendations relating to T&CM professional regulation across jurisdictions. Systematic review registration: the a priori protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO and is available at: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42020198767 .