Jones Curtis H
North American College of Botanical Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
J Altern Complement Med. 2005 Oct;11(5):937-44. doi: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.937.
The growing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and integrative medicine (IM) highlight the need for a clinically relevant system for classifying health care practices. All systems, modalities, and techniques of health care (conventional, complementary, alternative, and traditional) can be organized in categories of "primary mode of therapeutic action." This results in six categories: biochemical; biomechanical; mind-body; energy; psychological (symbolic); and nonlocal. In each category, there are subdivisions. Organizing health care by primary mode of therapeutic action has numerous benefits: (1) conventional and CAM practitioners, and the public, can readily see some of the general similarities and differences among practices; (2) health care educators gain a common foundation and shared language for explaining CAM and IM; (3) professionals and the public, wishing to combine dissimilar practices, gain a common framework for evaluating the meaning of integration; and (4) the crossover problem can be understood as a natural occurrence in health care, not a confusing intellectual dilemma. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) system of categories for CAM is briefly critiqued.
补充与替代医学（CAM）和整合医学（IM）日益普及，这凸显了建立一个与临床相关的医疗保健实践分类系统的必要性。所有医疗保健系统、模式和技术（传统、补充、替代和传统）都可以按照“主要治疗作用模式”进行分类。这产生了六个类别：生物化学；生物力学；身心；能量；心理（象征）；以及非局部。在每个类别中，都有细分。按照主要治疗作用模式对医疗保健进行分类有诸多益处：（1）传统医学和补充与替代医学从业者以及公众能够轻易看出不同实践之间的一些总体异同；（2）医疗保健教育工作者获得了一个共同基础和共享语言来解释补充与替代医学和整合医学；（3）希望结合不同实践的专业人员和公众获得了一个共同框架来评估整合的意义；（4）交叉问题可以被理解为医疗保健中的自然现象，而非令人困惑的知识困境。本文简要批评了美国国立补充与替代医学中心（NCCAM）的补充与替代医学分类系统。
