Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine

What are the ways in which social media is used in the context of complementary and alternative medicine in the health and medical scholarly literature? a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased use of social media to share health-related information and the substantial impact that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) can have on individuals' health and wellbeing, currently, to our knowledge, there is no review that compiles research on how social media is used in the context of CAM. The objective of this study was to summarize what are the ways in which social media is used in the context of CAM.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage methodological framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched from inception until October 3, 2020, in addition to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) website. Eligible studies had to have investigated how at least one social media platform is used in the context of a single or multiple types of CAM treatments.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 1714 items following deduplication, of which 1687 titles and abstracts were eliminated, leaving 94 full-text articles to be considered. Of those, 65 were not eligible, leaving a total of 29 articles eligible for review. Three themes emerged from our analysis: 1) social media is used to share user/practitioner beliefs, attitudes, and experiences about CAM, 2) social media acts as a vehicle for the spread of misinformation about CAM, and 3) there are unique challenges with social media research in the context of CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to social media being a useful tool to share user/practitioner beliefs, attitudes, and experiences about CAM, it has shown to be accessible, effective, and a viable option in delivering CAM therapies and information. Social media has also been shown to spread a large amount of misleading and false information in the context of CAM. Additionally, this review highlights the challenges with conducting social media research in the context of CAM, particularly in collecting a representative sample.

Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations

BACKGROUND

Individuals with neck pain frequently turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to seek relief. However, conventional healthcare providers often lack adequate CAM therapy knowledge to deliver informed recommendations to patients. The purpose of this study was to identify mention of CAM in neck pain clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and assess the quality of CAM recommendations using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020 in addition to the Guidelines International Network and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible CPGs providing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the AGREE II instrument, once to assess the overall CPG and then once to assess the CAM sections specifically.

RESULTS

From 643 unique search results, 15 CPGs on the treatment and/or management of neck pain were identified, and 8 made recommendations on CAM therapy. Regarding scaled domain percentages, the overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 5 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): (1) scope and purpose (93.4%, 93.1%), (2) stakeholder involvement (81.6%, 81.9%), (3) rigour of development (70.8%, 66.3%), (4) clarity of presentation (64.9%, 60.8%), (5) applicability (39.3%, 33.6%), and (6) editorial independence (47.9%, 45.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most neck pain CPGs made CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations is lower than overall recommendations across all domains with the exception of stakeholder involvement. This disparity highlights the need for CAM recommendations quality improvement. Although many patients with neck pain seek CAM therapies, few CPGs are available for healthcare providers and patients.

Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades, the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably and along with it, scrutiny regarding its evidence base. While this is to be expected, and is in line with other health disciplines, research in CAM is confronted by numerous obstacles. This scoping review aims to identify and report the strategies implemented to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM.

METHODS

The scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, JBI and the grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened the records, following which data extraction was completed for the included studies. Descriptive synthesis was used to summarise the data.

RESULTS

Of the 7945 records identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the oBSTACLES instrument as a framework, the included studies reported diverse strategies to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. All included studies reported the use of educational strategies and collaborative initiatives with CAM stakeholders, including targeted funding, to address a range of barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

While the importance of addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM has been recognised, to date, much of the focus has been limited to initiatives originating from a handful of jurisdictions, for a small group of CAM disciplines, and addressing few barriers. Myriad barriers continue to persist, which will require concerted effort and collaboration across a range of CAM stakeholders and across multiple sectors. Further research can contribute to the evidence base on how best to address these barriers to promote the conduct and application of research in CAM.

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.

The development of a survey instrument to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

As Complementary and Alternative medicine (CAM) grows in popularity, there is overt recognition for research evidence to inform clinical practice. While various strategies have been trialed to overcome the barriers to such progress, it is important to first understand the extent to which these barriers impact the conduct and application of CAM research. This study aimed to garner consensus and agreement among CAM researchers and practitioners in refining and validating a preliminary survey instrument for measuring these barriers.

METHODS

A three-round Delphi study was undertaken with 22 international experts of CAM research and practice. Round one gathered consensus on 30 statements listing barriers to the application and conduct of CAM research. Only rounds two and three sought consensus on revised statements. Any statement demonstrating ≥ 70% agreement on a four-point Likert scale was determined to have reached consensus.

RESULTS

Consensus and agreement was achieved for all 30 statements listing the barriers to the application and conduct of research in CAM. Additional commentary by the Delphi participants directed whether a statement had to be split into two parts or reworded. This process resulted in the generation of the "BarrierS To the Application and Conduct of rEsearch" (oBSTACLES) instrument.

CONCLUSION

This study, the first of its kind on this topic, identified consensus and agreement on a series of evidence-informed statements to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. The uniqueness of the oBSTACLES instrument is its ability to measure barriers across the evidence-based continuum.

The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines Among Surgical Patients: A Survey Study

PURPOSE

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased around the world. This study evaluates CAM use in surgery patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional and descriptive study.

METHODS

This study was conducted in a university hospital in Turkey between January 1 and June 30, 2016, on volunteer inpatients who were scheduled for surgery because of various complaints.

FINDINGS

In this study, 65.9% of the patients used CAMs, 87.4% of the patients used herbal methods, and 63.7% of the patients used cognitive-behavioral methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care providers, and nursing staff, in particular, should have adequate knowledge of societal approaches to CAMs, as well as the possible benefits and harms CAM may cause.

Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The popularity of Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably over the past few decades. This has been accompanied by increasing public pressure for CAM to be evidence-based. Notwithstanding, the conduct and application of research in CAM faces a number of obstacles. No systematic review has mapped these barriers to date. Therefore, this systematic literature review aimed to explore, identify and map the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM.

METHODS

Systematic searching of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, The Cochrane library, Google scholar and Google was conducted between February and June 2016 for pertinent publications. Pearling (secondary searching) of retrieved publications was also undertaken. Literature published only in English were included; however, no year limit was placed for searching. Two critical appraisal tools were used to critically appraise descriptive studies and opinion publications.

RESULTS

A total of 21 eligible publications were included in this review; this comprised of eight primary research articles and thirteen opinion publications. A critical appraisal process found two categories of good quality publications while recognising their limitations in terms of descriptive and opinion publications. The synthesised data from the selected publications about the barriers to the conduct and application of research within CAM were captured within two broad components, namely capacity and culture. Capacity encompassed elements such as access, competency, bias, incentives and time. Encompassed within culture were elements relating to the values and complex system of CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple barriers exist for the conduct and application of research in CAM. Given the growing popularity of these therapies, it is essential that the evidence base underpinning CAM also continues to expand. Without overt recognition of these barriers, enabling strategies cannot be applied. By addressing these barriers, CAM professions will be able to develop a critical mass and a well-coordinated research effort to assist the integration of evidence - based practice in CAM.

The quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine clinical practice guidelines on herbal medicines, acupuncture and spinal manipulation: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II

BACKGROUND

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is often not disclosed by patients, and can be unfamiliar to health care professionals. This may lead to underuse of beneficial CAM therapies, and overuse of other CAM therapies with little proven benefit or known contraindications. No prior research has thoroughly evaluated the credibility of knowledge-based resources. The purpose of this research was to assess the quantity and quality of CAM guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify CAM guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in January 2016 from 2003 to 2015. The National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health web site, and two CAM journals were also searched. Eligible guidelines published in English language by non-profit agencies on herbal medicine, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation for adults with any condition were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

RESULTS

From 3,126 unique search results, 17 guidelines (two herbal medicine, three acupuncture, four spinal manipulation, eight mixed CAM therapies) published in 2003 or later and relevant to several clinical conditions were eligible. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were clarity of presentation (85.3 %), scope and purpose (83.3 %), rigour of development (61.2 %), editorial independence (60.1 %), stakeholder involvement (52.0 %) and applicability (20.7 %). Quality varied within and across guidelines. None of the 17 guidelines were recommended by both appraisers; 14 were recommended as Yes or Yes with modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines that scored well could be used by patients and health care professionals as the basis for discussion about the use of these CAM therapies. In future updates, guidelines that achieved variable or lower scores could be improved according to specifications in the AGREE II instrument, and with insight from a large number of resources that are available to support guideline development and implementation. Future research should identify CAM therapies other than those reviewed here for which guidelines are available. Research is also needed on the safety and effectiveness of CAM therapies.

Retrospective case analyses of two people with cancer who followed the Bill Henderson Protocol

OBJECTIVE

To provide a retrospective case analyses of Bill Henderson Protocol adherence, a dietary cancer treatment regimen.

DESIGN

Case study analysis based on the National Cancer Institute's Best Case Series approach.

SUBJECTS

Using Mr Henderson's listserv (N = 31,000), members meeting certain criteria were invited to submit case documentation (diagnostic, treatment, outcome information). Ninety-two people responded.

RESULTS

Two people met the Best Case criteria. Both used conventional treatment initially (surgery, radiation, chemotherapy), but later turned exclusively to the Bill Henderson Protocol. Each case perceived benefit. One person eventually passed away. The second has returned to full health.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 cases provide a preliminary, detailed description of Bill Henderson Protocol adherence. They do not provide clear evidence of the protocol's effectiveness but do suggest further research be undertaken to assess the extent to which the Bill Henderson Protocol is followed in real-world settings, including consideration of adherence, side effects, and outcomes.

Reiki and related therapies in the dialysis ward: an evidence-based and ethical discussion to debate if these complementary and alternative medicines are welcomed or banned

BACKGROUND

Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAMs) are increasingly practiced in the general population; it is estimated that over 30% of patients with chronic diseases use CAMs on a regular basis. CAMs are also used in hospital settings, suggesting a growing interest in individualized therapies. One potential field of interest is pain, frequently reported by dialysis patients, and seldom sufficiently relieved by mainstream therapies. Gentle-touch therapies and Reiki (an energy based touch therapy) are widely used in the western population as pain relievers.By integrating evidence based approaches and providing ethical discussion, this debate discusses the pros and cons of CAMs in the dialysis ward, and whether such approaches should be welcomed or banned.

DISCUSSION

In spite of the wide use of CAMs in the general population, few studies deal with the pros and cons of an integration of mainstream medicine and CAMs in dialysis patients; one paper only regarded the use of Reiki and related practices. Widening the search to chronic pain, Reiki and related practices, 419 articles were found on Medline and 6 were selected (1 Cochrane review and 5 RCTs updating the Cochrane review). According to the EBM approach, Reiki allows a statistically significant but very low-grade pain reduction without specific side effects. Gentle-touch therapy and Reiki are thus good examples of approaches in which controversial efficacy has to be balanced against no known side effect, frequent free availability (volunteer non-profit associations) and easy integration with any other pharmacological or non pharmacological therapy. While a classical evidence-based approach, showing low-grade efficacy, is likely to lead to a negative attitude towards the use of Reiki in the dialysis ward, the ethical discussion, analyzing beneficium (efficacy) together with non maleficium (side effects), justice (cost, availability and integration with mainstream therapies) and autonomy (patients' choice) is likely to lead to a permissive-positive attitude.

SUMMARY

This paper debates the current evidence on Reiki and related techniques as pain-relievers in an ethical framework, and suggests that physicians may wish to consider efficacy but also side effects, contextualization (availability and costs) and patient's requests, according also to the suggestions of the Society for Integrative Oncology (tolerate, control efficacy and side effects).

Response to a proposal for an integrative medicine curriculum

BACKGROUND

A paper entitled "Core Competencies in Integrative Medicine for Medical School Curricula: A proposal," published in Academic Medicine, stimulated a broad discussion among complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) educators. This discussion led to a formal process for responding to the issues raised by the paper.

METHODS

Representatives from the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC) and the Oregon Collaborative for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (OCCIM) formed the ACCAHC/OCCIM Task Force to participate in a Delphi process of consultation and deliberation. This process led to a broad, cross-discipline agreement on important points to include in a response to the integrative medicine (IM) curriculum proposal.

RESULTS

Five key areas of concern emerged: (1) the definition of IM as presented in the paper; (2) lack of clarity about the goals of the proposed IM curriculum; (3) lack of recognition of the breadth of whole systems of health care; (4) omission of competencies related to collaboration between MDs and CAM professionals in patient care; and (5) omission of potential areas of partnership in IM education.

CONCLUSIONS

A major overall theme emerging from the Delphi process was a desire for closer collaboration between conventional medical schools and CAM academic institutions in developing IM curricula. Several cross-disciplinary venues for addressing the Delphi Task Force themes include the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine's R-25 Initiatives, and the National Education Dialogue. OCCIM is presented as an example of a successful lateral integration approach.

The "therapeutic footprint" of medical, complementary and alternative therapies and a doctor's duty of care

Complex societal factors unrelated to evidence of efficacy influence the increasing use of complementary and alternative therapies, which can be viewed as one form of health consumerism. The "therapeutic footprint" is a conceptual model that "plots" medical therapies and complementary and alternative therapies in relationship to one another and to their levels of risk and supporting evidence, acknowledging that medical therapies also entail risks. Philosophies about management of risk and adverse effects differ between complementary and alternative therapies and standard medical care, due to fundamental differences between professionalism within medicine and the demands of health consumerism. In standard medical care, patients' risks are mediated prior to treatment via the doctor-patient relationship and informed consent. With complementary and alternative therapies, protection mechanisms for consumers come into effect mainly after a problem has occurred. Understanding this difference helps doctors whose patients are using complementary or alternative therapies to define the boundaries between these therapies and professional medicine and provide appropriate disclosure of risks. Discussing complementary and alternative therapies and how they differ from standard medical care can provide opportunities to explore patients' concerns and improve the therapeutic relationship.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Mexican patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the second cause of death in Mexico, most cases are detected at advanced stages and the use of chemotherapy is frequent. At present, more than 300 types of complementary and/or alternative medicine (CAM) treatments are known that offer different therapeutic objectives. Many patients use this type of treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the characteristics of the patients that use CAM, to identify the aim of these treatments, the source of information and the potential benefits obtained by the patient.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was applied from February 20 to March 5, 2004 to non-selected patients with cancer in private consultation to determine age, sex, education level, work, use of CAM, type and number of used therapies, potential benefits and monthly cost. Two groups were formed, A for users and B for non-users of CAM. Results between groups were compared and the mentioned variables were correlated with the use of alternative medicine.

RESULTS

Group A included 37 patients and group B included 38, with no difference regarding age, education level, work and oncological diagnosis, p > 0.05; a significant trend was found as regards the feminine sex, p = 0.07, neoplasm different from breast cancer, p = 0.08 and evident association with neoplasm advanced stages, p = 0.02. Most patients used between 1 and 3 types of therapies, 97.2%. The most common types of therapies were nutritional and spiritual, 54% and 48.6%, respectively. The source was the patient's family in 56.4% and the physician in 24.3%. Complementary and alternative therapy was considered a success in 57.1%; most of the users mentioned benefits (78.6%) deemed as tranquility (46.4%) or improvement of the physical condition (46.4%). The average monthly cost was $ 345.5 dollars, with a range of $ 13.6 to $ 2,545.5 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of complementary and/or alternative therapy is frequent among young women with advanced cancer and high level of education. The family participates in the decision of using these methods; most users noticed a benefit in their general condition and reported tranquility; these patients may be prone to higher incidence of depression and anxiety. The effectiveness and safety of this type of treatments remain to be determined, as well as the possible interactions with conventional therapy.

Bias Control in Trials of Bodywork: A Review of Methodological Issues

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarize the methodological challenges in clinical trials of bodywork or handson mind-body therapies such as Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, Trager Work, Eutony, Body Awareness Therapy, Breath Therapy, and Rolfing, and to discuss ways these challenges can be addressed.

DESIGN

Review and commentary.

METHODS

Search of databases PubMed and EMBASE and screening of bibliographies. Published clinical studies were included if they used individual hands-on approaches and a focus on body awareness, and were not based on technical devices.

RESULTS

Of the 53 studies identified, 20 fulfilled inclusion criteria. No studies blinded subject to the treatment being given, but 5 used an alternative treatment and blinded participants to differential investigator expectations of efficacy. No study used a credible placebo intervention. No studies reported measures of patient expectations. Patient expectations have been measured in studies of other modalities but not of hands-on mind-body therapies. Options are presented for minimizing investigator and therapist bias and bias from differential patient expectations, and for maintaining some control for nonspecific treatment effects. Practical issues with recruitment and attrition resulting from volunteer bias are addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous clinical trials of hands-on complementary and alternative therapy interventions are scarce, needed, and feasible. Difficulties with blinding, placebo, and recruitment can be systematically addressed by various methods that minimize the respective biases. The methods suggested here may enhance the rigor of further explanatory trials.

Complementary medicine research in Australia: a strategy for the future

Research funding for CAM is inadequate, resulting in too few good quality studies to support its use. Widespread use of CAM, as well as its media promotion, make this a vital public health issue, and the Australian government has a social and ethical obligation to respond by developing a research infrastructure (as has been done by the United Kingdom and United States governments). We propose a funding model that neither draws directly from the CAM industry nor from current health research budgets, yet would strengthen Australia's international role in CAM research. Establishing and applying focused research methods in CAM is imperative for strengthening its evidence base and creating fresh options for safe and effective patient care.

Good medicine and bad medicine: science to promote the convergence of "alternative" and orthodox medicine

A complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) system divorced from scientific medicine means that patients can only benefit from the best of both systems by dividing their care. Science must be used to stimulate convergence of complementary and traditional healthcare. First class research to examine the more interesting claims of the alternative health industry is essential to broaden the range of therapeutic options available, while minimising fraudulent, ill-informed and sometimes dangerous practices. Mutual respect and interest between orthodox and alternative practitioners is appropriate, but there can be no compromise involving unscientific approaches to care. Health departments must play a greater role in stopping fraudulent claims being publicised, and in warning consumers about such claims.

The PAV trial: does lactobacillus prevent post-antibiotic vulvovaginal candidiasis? Protocol of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN24141277]

Background

Complementary and alternative medicines are used by many consumers, and increasingly are being incorporated into the general practitioner's armamentarium. Despite widespread usage, the evidence base for most complementary therapies is weak or non-existent. Post-antibiotic vulvovaginitis is a common problem in general practice, for which complementary therapies are often used. A recent study in Melbourne, Australia, found that 40% of women with a past history of vulvovaginitis had used probiotic Lactobacillus species to prevent or treat post-antibiotic vulvovaginitis. There is no evidence that this therapy is effective. This study aims to test whether oral or vaginal lactobacillus is effective in the prevention of post-antibiotic vulvovaginitis.

Methods/design

A randomised placebo-controlled blinded 2 × 2 factorial design is being used. General practitioners or pharmacists approach non-pregnant women, aged 18–50 years, who present with a non-genital infection requiring a short course of oral antibiotics, to participate in the study. Participants are randomised in a four group factorial design either to oral lactobacillus powder or placebo and either vaginal lactobacillus pessaries or placebo. These interventions are taken while on antibiotics and for four days afterwards or until symptoms of vaginitis develop. Women self collect a vaginal swab for culture of Candida species and complete a survey at baseline and again four days after completing their study medications. The sample size (a total of 496 – 124 in each factorial group) is calculated to identify a reduction of half in post-antibiotic vulvovaginitis from 23%, while allowing for a 25% drop-out. An independent Data Monitoring Committee is supervising the trial. Analysis will be intention-to-treat, with two pre-specified main comparisons: (i) oral lactobacillus versus placebo and (ii) vaginal lactobacillus versus placebo.