Work and Inter-subjectivity: a theoretical reflection on its dialectics in the field of health and nursing

This theoretical reflection intends to show the inter-subjective relationship that takes place in health and nursing practices under the following theoretical perspectives: Institutional Analysis, Psychodynamics of Labor and the Theory of Communicative Action, with an emphasis on the latter. Linking these concepts to the Marxist approach to work in the field of health emerges from recognizing the need for its continuous reconstruction-in this case, with a view to understand the interaction and communication intrinsic to work in action. The theory of Communicative Action seeks to consider these two inextricable dimensions: work as productive action and as interaction. The first corresponds to instrumental action based on technical rules with a production-guided rationale. The second refers to the interaction that takes place as communicative action and seeks understanding among subjects. We assume that adopting this theoretical perspective in the analysis of health and nursing practices opens new possibilities for clarifying its social and historical process and inter-subjective connections.

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

Complementary and alternative medicine costs - a systematic literature review

Objective: The aim of this literature review, performed within the framework of the Swiss governmental Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK), was to investigate costs of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in 11 electronic databases. All retrieved titles and reference lists were also hand-searched. Results: 38 publications were found: 23 on CAM of various definitions (medical and non-medical practitioners, over-the-counter products), 13 on homeopathy, 2 on phytotherapy. Studies investigated different kinds of costs (direct or indirect) and used different methods (prospective or retrospective questionnaires, data analyses, cost-effectiveness models). Most studies report 'out of pocket' costs, because CAM is usually not covered by health insurance. Costs per CAM-treatment / patient / month were AUD 7-66, CAD 250 and GBP 13.62 +/- 1.61. Costs per treatment were EUR 205 (range: 15-1,278), USD 414 +/- 269 and USD 1,127. In two analyses phytotherapy proved to be cost-effective. One study revealed a reduction of 1.5 days of absenteeism from work in the CAM group compared to conventionally treated patients. Another study, performed by a health insurance company reported a slight increase in direct costs for CAM. Costs for CAM covered by insurance companies amounted to approximately 0.2-0.5% of the total healthcare budget (Switzerland, 2003). Publications had several limitations, e.g. efficacy of therapies was rarely reported. As compared to conventional patients, CAM patients tend to cause lower costs. Conclusion: Results suggest lower costs for CAM than for conventional patients, but the limited methodological quality lowers the significance of the available data. Further well-designed studies and models are required.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in patients with organ transplantation in Switzerland

Introduction: The aim was to investigate retrospectively use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the treatment of patients with organ transplantation in Switzerland. Methods: Members of the Swiss transplant association completed a questionnaire about CAM use retrospectively. Five different stages were differentiated: CAM usage (1) during underlying disease, (2) before transplant, (3) during hospitalisation/ rehabilitation from transplant, (4) for transplant complications and (5) after transplant for other diseases. Results: Of the 267 patients contacted, 124 (46%) completed the questionnaire, and data of 118 (44%) participants could be analyzed: 55 women (47%), mean age 56 years. Overall, 64 (54%) indicated CAM use, with about 30% usage at every stage (except during hospitalization with only 10%). Different methods were most common: during underlying disease classical homeopathy (15% of all participants), before transplant dietary supplements (13%), during hospitalization meditation (3%), for transplantation complications dietary supplements (10%), and after transplant for other diseases massage (11%). Among the 64 CAM-users, the most important reasons for the usage were improvement of general condition (36%) and abatement of adverse effects of conventional treatment (25%). Among the 54 non-CAM-users, most frequent reasons for not choosing CAM were insecurity about interactions with conventional treatment (46%), and ignorance of this option (28%). About 35% of the CAM-users reported an improved general condition, while 30% noticed an abatement of side effects of conventional treatment. Conclusions: To prevent dangerous interactions with conventional treatment, more information on possibilities of CAM in the treatment of patients with transplantations is needed for doctors and patients.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Children with Cancer: A Study at a Swiss University Hospital

Background Though complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are frequently used by children and adolescents with cancer, there is little information on how and why they use it. This study examined prevalence and methods of CAM, the therapists who applied it, reasons for and against using CAM and its perceived effectiveness. Parent-perceived communication was also evaluated. Parents were asked if medical staff provided information on CAM to patients, if parents reported use of CAM to physicians, and what attitude they thought physicians had toward CAM. Study Design All childhood cancer patients treated at the University Children’s Hospital Bern between 2002–2011 were retrospectively surveyed about their use of CAM. Results Data was collected from 133 patients (response rate: 52%). Of those, 53% had used CAM (mostly classical homeopathy) and 25% of patients received information about CAM from medical staff. Those diagnosed more recently were more likely to be informed about CAM options. The most frequent reason for choosing CAM was that parents thought it wouldimprove the patient’s general condition. The most frequent reason for not using CAM was lack of information. Of those who used CAM, 87% perceived positive effects. Conclusions Since many pediatric oncology patients use CAM, patients’ needs should be addressed by open communication between families, treating oncologists and CAM therapists, which will allow parents to make informed and safe choices about using CAM.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Pain Management

Over the past several years, there has been a growing interest in CAM therapies at UCHC. There are doctors, nurses, researchers and students all actively learning about, researching and using CAM modalities. Among them is Dr. Mitch Kennedy, the first Naturopathic Physician to treat patients at the University of Connecticut Health Center.

The other side of the coin: safety of complementary and alternative medicine

Most consumers consider complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) products inherently safe. The growing simultaneous use of CAM products and pharmaceutical drugs by Australian consumers increases the risk of CAM-drug interactions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has a two-tier, risk-based regulatory system for therapeutic goods - CAM products are regulated as low risk products and are assessed for quality and safety; and sponsors of products must hold the evidence for any claim of efficacy made about them. Adverse reactions to CAM products can be classified as intrinsic (innate to the product), or extrinsic (where the risk is not related to the product itself, but results from the failure of good manufacturing practice). Adverse reactions to CAM practices can be classified as risks of commission (which includes removal of medical therapy) and risks of omission (which includes failure to refer when appropriate). While few systematic studies of adverse events with CAM exist, and under-reporting is likely, most CAM products and practices do not appear to present a high risk; their safety needs to be put into the perspective of wider safety issues. A priority for research is to rigorously define the risks associated with both CAM products and practices so that their potential impact on public health can be assessed.

The continuing use of complementary and alternative medicine in South Australia: costs and beliefs in 2004

Objective: To survey the use, cost, beliefs and quality of life of users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Design: A representative population survey conducted in 2004 with longitudinal comparison to similar 1993 and 2000 surveys. Participants: 3015 South Australian respondents over the age of 15 years (71.7% participation). Results: In 2004, CAMs were used by 52.2% of the population. Greatest use was in women aged 25-34 years, with higher income and education levels. CAM therapists had been visited by 26.5% of the population. In those with children, 29.9% administered CAMs to them and 17.5% of the children had visited CAM therapists. The total extrapolated cost in Australia of CAMs and CAM therapists in 2004 was AUD$1.8 billion, which was a decrease from AUD$2.3 billion in 2000. CAMs were used mostly to maintain general health. The users of CAM had lower quality-of-life scores than non-users. Among CAM users, 49.7% used conventional medicines on the same day and 57.2% did not report the use of CAMs to their doctor. About half of the respondents assumed that CAMs were independently tested by a government agency; of these, 74.8% believed they were tested for quality and safety, 21.8% for what they claimed, and 17.9% for efficacy. Conclusions: Australians continue to use high levels of CAMs and CAM therapists. The public is often unaware that CAMs are not tested by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for efficacy or safety.