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

Health needs, treatment decisions and experience of traditional complementary and integrative medicine use by women with diminished ovarian reserve: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) have fewer eggs than would be expected at their age. It is estimated that 10% of women seeking fertility treatment are diagnosed with DOR. However, the success rate of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is significantly lower in women with DOR, thus many seek additional approaches.

AIM

To explore the health needs of women with DOR, treatment options and experience of treatment including traditional complementary integrative medicine (TCIM).

METHODS

Anyone with a diagnosis of DOR, living in Australia or New Zealand, aged over 18 were invited to complete an online survey distributed via fertility support networks and social media platforms from April to December 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 67 respondents were included. The main aspects of health that were impacted by DOR were fertility (91.0%) and mental health (52.2%). The main treatment recommended was MAR with most women either currently using MAR (38.8%) or having previously used MAR (37.3%). TCIM was widely used with 88.1% of women utilising supplements, 74.6% consulting with TCIM practitioners, and 65.7% adopting self-care practices. The main reasons for using TCIM were to improve fertility or support pregnancy, and to support general health and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with DOR have additional health needs apart from infertility, most notably mental health support. The main form of treatment utilised is MAR, despite DOR being challenging for fertility clinicians. TCIM was widely used, and respondents perceived benefits related to improving fertility, supporting pregnancy, or improving well-being through use of acupuncture, meditation, naturopathy, massage, yoga.

A review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and health

Despite important progress in modern medicine, widely regarded as an indispensable foundation of healthcare in all highly advanced nations and regions, not all patients respond well to available treatments in biomedicine alone. Additionally, there are concerns about side effects of many medications and interventions, the unsustainable cost of healthcare and the low resolution of chronic non-communicable diseases and mental disorders whose incidence has risen in the last decades. Besides, the chronic stress and burnout of many healthcare professionals impairs the therapeutic relationship. These circumstances call for a change in the current paradigm and practices of biomedicine healthcare. Most of the world population (80%) uses some form of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (T&CM), usually alongside biomedicine. Patients seem equally satisfied with biomedicine and T&CM, but in the field of T&CM there are also many challenges, such as unsupported claims for safety and/or efficacy, contamination of herbal medicines and problems with regulation and quality standards. As biomedicine and T&CM seem to have different strengths and weaknesses, integration of both approaches may be beneficial. Indeed, WHO has repeatedly called upon member states to work on the integration of T&CM into healthcare systems. Integrative medicine (IM) is an approach that offers a paradigm for doing so. It combines the best of both worlds (biomedicine and T&CM), based on evidence for efficacy and safety, adopting a holistic personalized approach, focused on health. In the last decades academic health centers are increasingly supportive of IM, as evidenced by the foundation of national academic consortia for integrative medicine in Brazil (2017), the Netherlands (2018), and Germany (2024) besides the pioneering American consortium (1998). However, the integration process is slow and sometimes met with criticism and even hostility. The WHO T&CM strategies (2002-2005 and 2014-2023) have provided incipient guidance on the integration process, but several challenges are yet to be addressed. This policy review proposes several possible solutions, including the establishment of a global matrix of academic consortia for IM, to update and extend the WHO T&CM strategy, that is currently under review.

Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit

BACKGROUND

Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS).

METHODS

CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals.

RESULTS

A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8.

CONCLUSION

While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Characteristics of patients who use yoga for pain management in Indian yoga and naturopathy settings: a retrospective review of electronic medical records

Objectives

The aim of this study is to identify the characteristics of patients who underwent yoga therapy for pain in yoga and naturopathy clinical settings in India.

Methods

Electronic medical records of patients who received yoga therapy for pain in three inpatient yoga and naturopathy hospitals were reviewed retrospectively from January 2021 to September 2022. Demographic characteristics and details on pain condition, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, ancillary therapies received, and insurance status were collected. In addition, we prospectively collected data on adherence to yoga practice through a telephonic interview.

Results

A total of 984 patients were identified from a pool of 3,164 patients who received yoga therapy for pain for an average of 9.48 (1.13) days. Patients aged between 8 and 80 underwent therapy for varying pain conditions and diseases that include pain in the extremities, pain due to infection, trauma, degenerative diseases, autoimmune diseases, and spine and neurological diseases. The majority of the patients were females (66.3%), from middle class families (74.8%), and who did not have any insurance coverage (93.8%). Most of the patients were under naturopathy treatment (99.8%), followed by ayurveda (56%), and physiotherapy (49.3%), along with yoga therapy. All patients reported a significant reduction in pain post-integrated yoga therapy (p < 0.001). Adherence to yoga was significantly associated with underlying pain conditions, the presence of comorbidities, the types of therapies used, and socioeconomic status (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study highlights the real-time application of yoga in pain management in Indian yoga and naturopathy settings, as well as implications for future research.

An exploration of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine stakeholders in Australia and New Zealand: A qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Most studies examining complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) stakeholder engagement with evidence-based practice have relied on quantitative research methods, which often fail to capture the nuances of this phenomena. Using qualitative methods, this study aimed to explore the experiences of CAM stakeholders regarding the barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research.

METHODS

This research was guided by a qualitative descriptive framework. CAM practitioners and researchers of multiple CAM disciplines from across Australia and New Zealand were invited to share their personal perspectives of the study phenomena. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Rigour strategies were applied to ensure the credibility of results. The transcript was analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

CAM stakeholders identified an array of barriers and enablers to the conduct and application of research within their disciplines. The barriers and enablers that emerged were found to be inter-connected with two similar constructs: capacity and culture. Captured within the construct of capacity were five themes-lack of resources, inadequate governance/leadership, lack of competency, bias directed from outside and within CAM, and lack of time for research. Within the construct of culture were two themes-intrinsic perceptions in CAM, and lack of communication within and outside CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting evidence-based practice and engaging with research in CAM continues to face challenges. This study, for the first time, has highlighted the multitude of interlinked barriers that confront CAM stakeholders when engaging with research. These findings highlight the need for a concerted and targeted approach to tackle these challenges.