Complementary and alternative medicine research in practice-based research networks: A critical review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Acupuncture & Meridian Science Research Centre, College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Republic of Korea;2. Australian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia;3. Office of Research, Endeavour College of Natural Health, Brisbane, Australia;1. Australian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine (ARCCIM), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia;2. Office of Research, Endeavour College of Natural Health, Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia;3. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation (AIHI), Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;1. University of Technology Sydney, Australian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Health, Ultimo, NSW Australia;2. Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;3. School of Health & Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia;4. College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;5. Department of Chiropractic, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia;1. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Duke Integrative Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Box 102904, Durham, NC 27710;2. East Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville, NC;3. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC;4. Department of Human Development and Psychological Counseling, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC;5. Department of Integrative Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY;6. Penny George Institute for Health and Healing, Minneapolis, MN;7. Duke Integrative Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC;8. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC;9. Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA;1. ThEMAS Team, TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, UMR CNRS-UGA, 5525 Grenoble, France;2. Critical Thinking Research Federation, Grenoble-Alpes University, FED, 4270 Grenoble, France;3. School of Physiotherapy, Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital, Grenoble, France;1. National Institute of Complementary Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;2. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;3. Australasian Integrative Medicine Association, Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia;4. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;5. Department of Rehabilitation, Nutrition and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;6. Mapua Health Centre, Mapua, New Zealand;7. Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;8. Preventive and Primary Health Care Medicine, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | AimsTo provide a critical analysis of peer-reviewed literature reporting research from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) relating to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).MethodsA comprehensive literature search of peer-reviewed literature reporting PBRN research focusing upon CAM was conducted in PubMed, Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL from their inceptions to June 2017. PBRN registry and websites of relevant PBRNs were also searched for further information. With regards to the nested PBRN studies included in our review, no study design restrictions were imposed and both empirical research and relevant methodologically-focused manuscripts were included. Methodological quality was evaluated via a number of established tools.ResultsA total of 51 articles reporting upon CAM research in PBRNs including six articles outlining CAM-focused PBRN establishment were included in the review. The findings of the literature were categorised as either: health services research (including work examining characteristics of patients and practices, doctor-patient communication, and CAM prevalence); effectiveness/safety research; or feasibility research. While 19 studies from non-CAM focused PBRNs tended to report on CAM prevalence and doctor-patient communication about CAM use, 26 articles from CAM-focused PBRNs reported on the characteristics of CAM users, practice patterns, and effectiveness/safety of CAM practice.Discussion and conclusionPBRNs - both CAM-focused and non-CAM focused - have provided a useful platform for research investigations around a number of core CAM-related issues. Given the increasing popularity of CAM use in healthcare and the identified benefits of practice-relevant research, further in-depth CAM research nested within PBRN designs is warranted. |
| |
| Keywords: | Practice-based research network PBRN Complementary and alternative medicine |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
