Suppr超能文献

补充替代医学:探究证据与应用之间的差距。

Complementary and alternative medicine: exploring the gap between evidence and usage.

机构信息

University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Health (London). 2012 Jul;16(4):366-81. doi: 10.1177/1363459311425516. Epub 2011 Oct 21.

Abstract

Debates over the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are highly polarized and have received much publicity of late. While 'believers' in CAM campaign for its integration into the NHS, 'sceptics' call for the withdrawal of any public funding for such services. These debates take place in the context of a steady rise in CAM usage both in the UK and abroad. Critics of CAM often point to the lack of scientific evidence demonstrating its efficacy. The lack of evidence gathered by means of randomized controlled trials is often used to make the claim that CAM is no more effective than placebo. This article examines some of the debates surrounding the use of evidence-based medicine to assess the efficacy of CAM. It also explores a number of issues pertaining to CAM and the placebo response including the moral questions surrounding the knowing use of placebo as therapy. The rest of the article presents material from a qualitative study carried out in northern England on the understandings of CAM efficacy. The material shows that CAM therapists and patients do not reflect the polarities evident in the public debate in their own understanding and usage of CAM. Rather they are pragmatic pluralists with clear ideas about when CAM treatment is appropriate and often have sophisticated insights into the placebo response. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of these findings for future work in the growing field of CAM research.

摘要

关于补充和替代医学(CAM)疗效的争论非常两极化,最近受到了很多关注。虽然 CAM 的“信徒”主张将其纳入国民保健制度(NHS),但“怀疑论者”则呼吁撤回对这些服务的任何公共资金支持。这些辩论是在英国和国外 CAM 使用稳步上升的背景下进行的。CAM 的批评者经常指出缺乏科学证据证明其疗效。缺乏通过随机对照试验收集的证据常常被用来声称 CAM 与安慰剂一样没有效果。本文探讨了一些围绕循证医学的使用来评估 CAM 疗效的争论。它还探讨了与 CAM 和安慰剂反应相关的一些问题,包括围绕将安慰剂作为治疗手段的明知使用的道德问题。本文的其余部分展示了在英格兰北部进行的一项关于对 CAM 疗效的理解的定性研究的材料。这些材料表明,CAM 治疗师和患者在自己对 CAM 的理解和使用中并没有反映出公众辩论中明显的两极分化。相反,他们是务实的多元论者,对于何时使用 CAM 治疗有明确的想法,并且经常对安慰剂反应有深刻的见解。文章最后简要讨论了这些发现对 CAM 研究这一日益增长的领域未来工作的影响。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验