The recent global activity featured in the Integrator Blog News and Reports and re-posted by ISCMR, an international society of researchers in traditional, complementary, alternative and integrative medicine and health, has shown an unmistakable pattern: multiple governments are acting to remove recognition of homeopathy and certain of other complementary and integrative practice deemed “psuedo-scientific.” It’s not the only pattern. There hjave been recent positive governmental steps in Switzerland, India, the US and elsewhere. Still, the regulatory integrative ectomies in Spain, France, the UK, Australia, Canada – and here in the USA – are worth a collective heads up.
Is it possible that group visits can outperform individual visits in patient reported outcomes? The audience for an energetic panel discussion that touched on group visits at the February 2019 Integrative Healthcare Symposium heard an intriguing – though yet premature – data point. Panelist Mark Hyman MD noted that the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine (CCCFM) has developed a functional medicine “shared medical appointments” group model at the. Hyman then noted that first indications appear to be that self-reports of participants in groups in the Center’s Functioning for Life program. A cursory look at data showed more positive change on key self-report measures via group than via the Center’s already positive individual functional medicine program outcomes. Scientifically verified outcomes have not been reported. Will the performance of group-delivered services hold up under statistical analysis?
The past 20 years witnessed the expansion of a new type of institution in academic health care – and specifically in integrative health and medicine: multidisciplinary universities with professional degrees in multiple natural health fields. Variously denominated as universities of “natural health sciences” or “health sciences” or “integrative health” or merely as “university,” these 7 institutions were each founded as single purpose colleges to educate chiropractors, naturopathic doctors or acupuncturists. They expanded to include other disciplines, degrees and certifications. Many have played important roles in the integrative health movement. All sit at the intersection of two fields in turmoil: health care and higher education. I interviewed the presidents of each to access their vantage points. This overview is a first in a two-part series.
When a global scientific community for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine emerged 20-years ago, it declared for the importance of what it called “whole systems research” (WSR). Such exploration was declared as core mission of an organization, ISCMR, formed to network the community. It was formed in contra-distinction to reductive, single agent trials that were then a relatively unchallenged “gold standard” for research. Researchers associated with chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture and other licensed integrative practice fields prioritized such research in a 2009-2011 campaign to influence the priorities at what is now the NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Academic integrative medical doctor researchers called for it. Yet now a special issue of an integrative health journal – available entirely in open access to the public – is questioning whether steam is left in that thrust – and whether, ironically, such interest is dissipating at a moment of potentially broader embrace.