Bridging the Gap Between Conventional and Alternative Medicine

,

Original Research

Bridging the Gap Between Conventional and Alternative Medicine

J Fam Pract. 2000 March;49(3):234-239

References

1. Benjamin SA, Benson H, Gordon JS, Sullivan M. Mind-body medicine: expanding the health model. Patient Care 1997;15:127-45.

2. Cant S, Sharma U. Complementary and alternative medicines: knowledge in practice. New York, NY: Free Association Books; 1996.

3. Cohen MH. Complementary and alternative medicine: legal boundaries and regulatory perspectives. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1998.

4. Lewith G, Kenyon J, Lewis P. Complementary medicine: an integrated approach. Oxford general practice series, no. 34. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1996.

5. Marshall E. The politics of alternative medicine. Science 1994;265:2000-2.

6. National Institutes of Health. Alternative medicine: expanding medical horizons. A report to the National Institutes of Health on alternative medical systems and practices in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1992.

7. Wardwell WI. Alternative medicine in the United States. Soc Sci Med 1994;38:1061-8.

8. Abbot NC, White AR, Ernst E. Complementary medicine. Nature 1996;381:361.-

9. Alpert JS. The relativity of alternative medicine. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:2385.-

10. CAM Panel. Defining and describing complementary and alternative medicine: panel consensus following CAM research methodology conference, April 1995. Alternative Ther Health Med 1997;3:49-57.

11. Ernst E. Complementary medicine: an objective appraisal. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1996.

12. Pavek RR, Trachtenberg AI. Current status of alternative health practices in the United States. Contemp Intern Med 1995;7:61-72.

13. Spencer JW, Jacobs JJ. Complementary/alternative medicine: an evidence-based approach. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby, Inc; 1999.

14. Bernam BM, Singh BK, Lao L, Singh BB, Ferentz KS, Hartnoll SM. Physicians attitudes toward complementary or alternative medicine: a regional survey. J Am Board Fam Pract 1995;8:361-6.

15. Borkan J, Neher JO, Anson O, Smoker B. Referrals for alternative therapies. J Fam Pract 1994;39:545-50.

16. Bower H. Double standards exist in judging traditional and alternative medicine. BMJ 1998;316:1694.-

17. Ernst E, Resch K-L, White A. Complementary medicine: what physicians think of it. A meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1995;155:2405-8.

18. White AR, Resch K-L, Ernst E. Complementary medicine: use and attitudes among GPs. Fam Pract 1997;14:302-6.

19. Ernst E, Wiloughby M, Weihmayr T. Nine possible reasons for choosing complementary medicine. Perfusion 1995;11:356-9.

20. Furnham A. Why do people choose and use complementary therapies? In: Ernst E, ed. Complementary medicine: an objective appraisal. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1996;71-88.

21. Kelner M, Wellman B. Health care and consumer choice: medical and alternative therapies. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:203-12.

22. Vincent C, Furnham A. Why do patients turn to complementary medicine? An empirical study. Br Psychological Society 1996;35:37-48.

23. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993;328:246-52.

24. Crabtree BF, Miller WF. Doing qualitative research. Sage publications series on research methods for primary care, volume 3. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1992.

25. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1993.

26. McCracken G. The long interview. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1988.

27. Dickinson DPS. The growth of complementary therapies: a consumer-led boom. In Ernst E, ed. Complementary medicine: an objective appraisal. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1996;150-62.

28. Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. BMJ 1994;309:107-10.

29. Gray C. Growing popularity of complementary medicine leads to national organization for MDs. Can Med Assoc J 1997;157:186-8.

30. MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet 1996;347:569-73.

31. Millar WJ. Use of alternative health care practitioners by Canadians. Can J Public Health 1997;88:154-8.

32. Shenfield GM, Atkin PA, Kristoffersen SS. Alternative medicine: an expanding health industry. Med J Australia 1997;166:516-7.

33. Thomas KJ, Carr J, Westlake L, Williams BT. The use of non-orthodox and conventional health care in Great Britain. BMJ 1991;302:207-10.

34. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. JAMA 1998;280:1569-75.

35. Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 1998;279:1548-53.

36. Brevoort P. The booming US botanical market: a new overview. HerbalGram 1998;44:33-46.

37. Landmark Healthcare. The Landmark report on public perceptions of alternative care. 1998 nationwide study of alternative care. Random telephone survey of 1500 households. Sacramento, Calif: Landmark Healthcare, Inc; 1998.

38. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977;196:129-36.

39. Sadler JZ, Hulgus Y. Knowing, valuing, acting: clues to revising the biopsychosocial model. Compr Psychiatry 1990;31:185-95.

40. Smith KC, Kleinman A. Beyond the biomedical model: integration of psychosocial and cultural orientations. In: Taylor RB, David AK, Johnson TA, eds. Family medicine: principles and practice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1983.

41. Goldstein M, Sutherland C, Jaffe D, Wilson J. Holistic physicians and family practitioners: similarities, differences and implications for health policy. Soc Sci Med 1988;26:853-61.

42. Kuzel AJ. Naturalistic inquiry: an appropriate model for family medicine. Fam Med 1986;18:369-74.

43. Miller WL. Models of health, illness, and health care. In: Taylor RB, David AK, Johnson TA, eds. Family Medicine: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1988.

44. Stephens GG. The intellectual basis of family practice. J Fam Pract 1975;2:423-8.

45. Stephens GG. Family medicine as counter-culture. STFM annual meeting, Denver, Colo. May 9, 1979.

46. Andersen RM. Behavioral model of families’ use of health services. University of Chicago Center for Health Services research series no 250 Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1968.

47. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995;36:1-10.

48. Campbell S, Roland MO. Why do people consult the doctor? Fam Pract 1996;13:75-83.

49. Zola IK. Pathways to the doctor: from person to patient. Soc Sci Med 1973;7:677-89.

People seek either conventional or alternative health care for a variety of reasons, from perceived health need to accessibility to perceived effectiveness.^48,49 Astin35 has shown that philosophical orientation—as defined by an interest in personal and spiritual growth and a commitment to environmentalism and feminism—is a significant predictor of use of CAM. In a national representative survey, patients within this defined group of “cultural creatives” were twice as likely to choose CAM therapies than other patients; it was a stronger statistical predictor than either education or global health status. Astin’s conclusions infer that the values of this segment of society have permeated the social matrix enough to influence health care behaviors, leading to the dramatic increase in CAM therapy during the 1990s.

Conclusions

The patients and providers interviewed for our study called for integration of the best aspects of conventional and alternative care. They suggested that the apparent strengths of CAM—especially holism and empowerment—could be used to help improve the quality of conventional health care. We suggest that some ideas and methods from CAM should be investigated and, if found deserving, either adopted or adapted by the official medical system. CAM therapists should be credentialed and incorporated into the health care team and some CAM methods should be learned by conventional providers. Our respondents felt that an integrative effort, if backed by credible evidence and implemented with high-quality standards, could help heal a powerful, but sometimes dangerous, health care system. We feel that this type of integrative effort requires regulation as well as recognition, and should include outcomes-based research. Such an endeavor should be based both on principles and on outcomes data. One such principle was clearly articulated by our respondents: All people should have access to legitimate, holistic, and empowering health care.