Perception of integrating complementary and alternative medicine practice in patient's treatment among the healthcare practitioners: a systematic review

Implementing integrative therapies in adult critical care: Barriers and strategies

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients experience intense physical and psychological stressors in the intensive care unit (ICU). More than half of ICU survivors report overwhelming mental health symptoms after ICU discharge, such as post-traumatic stress symptoms, anxiety, and depression. Relaxation-inducing integrative therapies such as guided imagery, massage, therapeutic touch, music therapy, and spirituality-based healing practices have the potential to promote comfort and relaxation and improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes of healthcare professionals towards the implementation of relaxation-inducing integrative therapies in critical care, barriers to implementation, and potential strategies to overcome them.

METHODS

We conducted seven focus group interviews with 23 critical care clinicians (70% nurses, 17% allied health professionals, 13% physicians). Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analysed using an inductive content analysis approach.

FINDINGS

Results reveal a constant interplay between mostly positive personal attitudes towards implementation of integrative therapies and the perceived culture and priorities of the unit. The main benefits for critically ill patients as perceived by participants were promotion of comfort, sleep, and coping, increase of trust, and decrease of pain and stress. As for barriers, dominant themes were a perceived lack of evidence, cost, and time constraints and the fear of loss of professional credibility. Participants related nurses' education and training, family involvement, and leadership were seen as main strategies for implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The dominant ICU culture needs to be considered when implementing integrative therapies. Education, access to evidence, and role modelling are proposed as means to shift the ICU culture towards utilisation of integrative therapies in critical care.

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.