Evidence based complementary and alternative medicine: promises and problems.

Q Medicine
Forschende Komplementarmedizin Pub Date : 2007-04-01 Epub Date: 2007-04-23 DOI:10.1159/000101054
Ian D Coulter
{"title":"Evidence based complementary and alternative medicine: promises and problems.","authors":"Ian D Coulter","doi":"10.1159/000101054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present paper examines the experience of establishing a center for evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (EBCAM) practice. It examines both the difficulties and the challenges of doing research to establish EBCAM. The paper also examines the political context of the demand for evidence- based practice (EBP) for CAM.</p><p><strong>Implementation: </strong>A center for EBCAM was funded for 3 years within the Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center by the National Center for CAM and administered by the Agency for Health Research Quality. This experience provides the basis for this paper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While the experience of creating an EBM Center for CAM has shown that much work can be accomplished by applying standard methods of EBP medicine, it also highlights the weaknesses of such an agenda. Many standard research methods are simply not applicable to CAM, and even where they are, effectiveness is a much more important means of assessing CAM than simply efficacy. Researchers however, must be conscious of the political motivations behind much of the demand for EBCAM. Where such demands are coming from allopathic medicine, they clearly form a continuing part of medical opposition to CAM and may be intended to perpetuate the dominance of the biomedical paradigm in healthcare. The challenge for CAM is to recognize the limitations of EBP but not to throw the 'baby out with the bathwater'. There is much in EBP that clearly should be emulated by the CAM community but only where it is appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"14 2","pages":"102-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000101054","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000101054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2007/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Objective: The present paper examines the experience of establishing a center for evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (EBCAM) practice. It examines both the difficulties and the challenges of doing research to establish EBCAM. The paper also examines the political context of the demand for evidence- based practice (EBP) for CAM.

Implementation: A center for EBCAM was funded for 3 years within the Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center by the National Center for CAM and administered by the Agency for Health Research Quality. This experience provides the basis for this paper.

Results: While the experience of creating an EBM Center for CAM has shown that much work can be accomplished by applying standard methods of EBP medicine, it also highlights the weaknesses of such an agenda. Many standard research methods are simply not applicable to CAM, and even where they are, effectiveness is a much more important means of assessing CAM than simply efficacy. Researchers however, must be conscious of the political motivations behind much of the demand for EBCAM. Where such demands are coming from allopathic medicine, they clearly form a continuing part of medical opposition to CAM and may be intended to perpetuate the dominance of the biomedical paradigm in healthcare. The challenge for CAM is to recognize the limitations of EBP but not to throw the 'baby out with the bathwater'. There is much in EBP that clearly should be emulated by the CAM community but only where it is appropriate.

基于证据的补充和替代医学:承诺和问题。
目的:探讨建立循证补充替代医学(EBCAM)实践中心的经验。它考察了为建立EBCAM而进行研究的困难和挑战。本文还考察了CAM对基于证据的实践(EBP)需求的政治背景。实施情况:在南加州循证实践中心内,由国家循证实践中心资助了一个EBCAM中心,为期3年,由卫生研究质量局管理。这一经验为本文提供了依据。结果:虽然为CAM创建EBM中心的经验表明,通过应用EBP医学的标准方法可以完成许多工作,但它也突出了这样一个议程的弱点。许多标准的研究方法根本不适用于CAM,即使在适用的地方,有效性也是评估CAM的重要手段,而不仅仅是疗效。然而,研究人员必须意识到对EBCAM需求背后的政治动机。当这些需求来自对抗疗法医学时,它们显然形成了医学上反对辅助医学的持续部分,可能是为了使生物医学范式在医疗保健领域的主导地位永续下去。CAM面临的挑战是认识到EBP的局限性,而不是把“婴儿连同洗澡水一起倒掉”。在EBP中有很多东西显然应该被CAM社区模仿,但只在合适的地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信