Lu Weidong
Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Med Acupunct. 2025 Apr 17;37(2):112-123. doi: 10.1089/acu.2024.0140. eCollection 2025 Apr.
In the United States, acupuncture education is divided into two primary pathways: medical acupuncture for licensed physicians and traditional acupuncture rooted in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for nonphysician practitioners. These pathways reflect the distinct educational needs and historical development of acupuncture in the United States.
To compare medical and traditional acupuncture educational systems, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and the potential for integration to enhance patient care.
This narrative review utilized comprehensive literature searches, analyzing peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and accreditation documents. The study focused on programs approved by the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture and accredited by the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine.
Medical acupuncture programs are shorter and emphasize evidence-based practice, allowing physicians to integrate acupuncture into conventional medical treatment. These programs focus on Western medical terminology and concepts but may lack depth in TCM principles. Traditional acupuncture programs offer extensive training in TCM principles and practices, including herbal medicine, with comprehensive clinical training but may lack emphasis on modern medical science and research-based evidence. There is a significant workforce disparity between licensed traditional acupuncturists and the much smaller number of medical acupuncturists in practice.
Integrating both educational pathways can enhance patient care through comprehensive treatment approaches. Successful integration examples demonstrate improved patient outcomes. Future efforts should focus on developing joint training programs, promoting research collaboration, and increasing hospital-based internships to foster interdisciplinary learning and practice.
在美国，针灸教育分为两条主要途径：针对执业医师的医学针灸，以及针对非医师从业者的根植于中医（TCM）的传统针灸。这些途径反映了美国针灸独特的教育需求和历史发展。
比较医学针灸和传统针灸教育体系，突出它们的优势、劣势以及整合以改善患者护理的潜力。
本叙述性综述利用全面的文献检索，分析同行评审文章、机构报告和认证文件。该研究聚焦于美国医学针灸学会批准并经针灸与草药医学认证委员会认证的项目。
医学针灸项目学制较短，强调循证实践，使医师能够将针灸融入传统医学治疗。这些项目侧重于西医术语和概念，但可能在中医原理方面缺乏深度。传统针灸项目提供中医原理和实践的广泛培训，包括草药医学，并提供全面的临床培训，但可能缺乏对现代医学科学和基于研究的证据的重视。在执业的持牌传统针灸师与数量少得多的医学针灸师之间存在显著的劳动力差距。
整合这两条教育途径可以通过综合治疗方法改善患者护理。成功的整合实例表明患者预后得到改善。未来的努力应集中在开发联合培训项目、促进研究合作以及增加医院实习机会，以促进跨学科学习和实践。
