Leach Matthew J, Eaton Heather, Agnew Tamara, Thakkar Manisha, Wiese Marlene
Department of Rural Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.
Int J Clin Pract. 2019 Apr;73(4):e13321. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13321. Epub 2019 Feb 25.
The past few decades have witnessed a surge in consumer, clinician and academic interest in the field of integrative healthcare (IHC). Yet, there is still uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of IHC for complex, long-term health conditions.
To assess the effectiveness of IHC for the management of any chronic health condition.
Seven databases and four clinical trial registries were searched from inception through to May 2018 for comparative/controlled clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of IHC for any chronic disease, and assessing any outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool.
The search yielded 6,926 results. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had at least three design features that carried an uncertain/high risk of bias. Differences in physiological, psychological and functional outcomes, and quality of life between patients receiving IHC and patients receiving conventional/usual care were varied and inconsistent. Changes in patient satisfaction with care were inconclusive. No studies reported the effectiveness of IHC on workforce- or administration-related parameters. Evidence from one trial suggested IHC may be more cost-effective than conventional care.
The findings indicate some promising effects for the use of IHC to manage chronic disease. However, the uncertain/high risk of bias across multiple domains, diverse and inconsistent findings, and heterogeneity of outcome measures and study populations prevents firm conclusions from being reached. Along with conducting further well-designed, long-term studies in this field, there is a need to ensure interventions closely align with the definition/principles of IHC.
在过去几十年里,消费者、临床医生和学术界对综合医疗保健(IHC)领域的兴趣激增。然而,对于IHC在复杂的长期健康状况方面的有效性仍存在不确定性。
评估IHC对任何慢性健康状况的管理效果。
检索了7个数据库和4个临床试验注册库,从创建至2018年5月,查找比较性/对照临床试验,这些试验研究了IHC对任何慢性病的有效性,并评估了任何结果。使用Cochrane协作偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。
检索得到6926条结果。8项研究符合纳入标准。所有研究至少有三个设计特征存在不确定/高偏倚风险。接受IHC的患者与接受传统/常规护理的患者在生理、心理和功能结果以及生活质量方面的差异各不相同且不一致。患者对护理满意度的变化尚无定论。没有研究报告IHC对劳动力或管理相关参数的有效性。一项试验的证据表明,IHC可能比传统护理更具成本效益。
研究结果表明,使用IHC管理慢性病有一些有前景的效果。然而,多个领域存在不确定/高偏倚风险、研究结果多样且不一致,以及结果测量和研究人群的异质性,使得无法得出确凿结论。除了在该领域开展进一步精心设计的长期研究外,还需要确保干预措施与IHC的定义/原则紧密一致。