The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home

Fonnebo, Vinjar, Grimsgaard, Sameline, Walach, Harald, Ritenbaugh, Cheryl, Norheim, Arne Johan, MacPherson, Hugh, Lewith, George, Launso, Laila, Koithan, Mary, Falkenberg, Torkel, Boon, Heather and Aickin, Mikel (2007) Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, (7), 6pp. (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-7).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background To explore the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities.
Discussion There appears to be a gap between published studies showing little or no efficacy of CAM, and reports of substantial clinical benefit from patients and CAM practitioners. This "gap" might be partially due to the current focus on placebo-controlled randomized trials, which are appropriately designed to answer questions about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents. In an attempt to fit this assessment strategy, complex CAM treatment approaches have been dissected into standardized and often simplified treatment methods, and outcomes have been limited. Unlike conventional medicine, CAM has no regulatory or financial gatekeeper controlling their therapeutic "agents" before they are marketed. Treatments may thus be in widespread use before researchers know of their existence. In addition, the treatments are often provided as an integrated 'whole system' of care, without careful consideration of the safety issue.
We propose a five-phase strategy for assessing CAM built on the acknowledgement of the inherent, unique aspects of CAM treatments and their regulatory status in most Western countries. These phases comprise:
1. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization
2. Safety status
3. Comparative effectiveness.
4. Component efficacy
5. Biological mechanisms.
Summary Using the proposed strategy will generate evidence relevant to clinical practice, while acknowledging the absence of regulatory and financial gatekeepers for CAM. It will also emphasize the important but subtle differences between CAM and conventional medical practice.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 11 February 2007
Keywords: agents, biomedical research, adverse effects, patients, treatment, safety, complementary therapies, humans, research, norway, utilization, legislation & jurisprudence, report, methods

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 61784
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61784
ISSN: 1471-2288
PURE UUID: fb3a42ba-b304-48d6-8134-5f0c6de946ed

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Sep 2008
Last modified: 17 Jul 2017 14:21

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Vinjar Fonnebo
Author: Sameline Grimsgaard
Author: Harald Walach
Author: Cheryl Ritenbaugh
Author: Arne Johan Norheim
Author: Hugh MacPherson
Author: George Lewith
Author: Laila Launso
Author: Mary Koithan
Author: Torkel Falkenberg
Author: Heather Boon
Author: Mikel Aickin

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×