“…Comparisons of conventional medicine rates for effective treatment of all four menstrual issues have been reported as variable across reviews (Marjoribanks, Lethaby, & Farquhar, ; Sharp et al, ; Yonkers, O'Brien, & Eriksson, ) and/or to be subject to significant risk of side effects (Kaunitz et al, ; Marjoribanks et al, ; Taylor, ) and in the case of hormone therapies, such as oral contraceptives and gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonists (Yonkers et al, ), and surgery (hysterectomy or oophorectomy; Yonkers et al, ) carry the significant drawback of being unsuitable for women contemplating pregnancy. Not only have health service managers acknowledged that CAM practitioners can bridge gaps in their service and improve holistic care and choices for clients (Singer & Adams, ) but some general and specialist conventional health practitioners have endorsed having CAM options available for treating gynaecological issues (Münstedt, Maisch, Tinneberg, & Hübner, ). Scope may therefore exist for increased treatment options for women but further investigation involving suitable clinical trials of WHM would be a prerequisite.…”