Provision of complementary and alternative medicine: Compliance with the health professional requirements

Pokladníková, Jitka; Telec, Ivo

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.01.009

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CAM usage has increased as a result of growing dissatisfaction with traditional medicine; 17 however, its legislation, regulation and accreditation continue to vary considerably between regions. 18 , 19 CAM usage is common among the general population across Europe 20 and is associated with health, socioeconomic and demographic indicators. 21 A review of surveys of CAM use in the United Kingdom found an average 1-year prevalence of CAM use of 41.1% and an average lifetime prevalence of 51.8%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health

Morrissey

O’Neill

O’Sullivan

et al. 2021

British Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study describes the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among older adults who report being hampered in daily activities due to musculoskeletal pain. The characteristics of older adults with debilitating musculoskeletal pain who report CAM use is also examined. Methods: Cross-sectional European Social Survey Round 7 data from 21 countries were examined for participants aged 55 years and older, who reported musculoskeletal pain that hampered daily activities in the past 12 months. Results: Of the 4950 older adult participants reporting musculoskeletal pain that hampered daily activities, the majority (63.5%) were from the West of Europe, reported secondary education or less (78.2%), and reported at least one other health-related problem (74.6%). In total, 1657 (33.5%) reported using at least one CAM treatment in the previous year. Manual body-based therapies (MBBTs) were most used, including massage therapy (17.9%) and osteopathy (7.0%). Alternative medicinal systems (AMSs) were also popular with 6.5% using homoeopathy and 5.3% reporting herbal treatments. A general trend of higher CAM use in younger participants was noted. CAM use was associated with physiotherapy use, female gender, higher levels of education, being in employment and living in West Europe. Those reporting multiple health problems were more likely to use all CAM treatments, except MBBT. Conclusion: A third of older Europeans with musculoskeletal pain report CAM use in the previous 12 months. Certain subgroups with higher rates of CAM use could be identified. Clinicians should comprehensively and routinely assess CAM use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health

Morrissey

O’Neill

O’Sullivan

et al. 2021

British Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the literature points to continuing interest in and use of T&CM in LMICs [ 95 , 299 – 301 ] and HICs [ 302 – 306 ], studies suggest that T&CM practitioners continue to struggle for institutional recognition of their practice and to engage conventional practitioners in collaborative practice. In LMICs, studies show efforts to better harness Indigenous medicine practitioners to deliver primary care and meet public health goals, with statutory registration a vehicle to elevate the status of Indigenous medicine practitioners and facilitate their integration into mainstream health systems [ 300 , 301 , 307 , 308 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Leslie,

Bourgeault,

Carlton

et al. 2023

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability, while promoting patient safety. This review aimed to identify evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR to inform policy decisions. Methods We conducted an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were systematically searched, with data extracted and synthesized based on a modified Donabedian framework. Findings This large-scale review synthesized evidence from a range of academic (n = 410) and grey literature (n = 426) relevant to HPR. We identified key themes and findings for a series of HPR topics organized according to our structures–processes–outcomes conceptual framework. Governance reforms in HPR are shifting towards multi-profession regulators, enhanced accountability, and risk-based approaches; however, comparisons between HPR models were complicated by a lack of a standardized HPR typology. HPR can support government workforce strategies, despite persisting challenges in cross-border recognition of qualifications and portability of registration. Scope of practice reform adapted to modern health systems can improve access and quality. Alternatives to statutory registration for lower-risk health occupations can improve services and protect the public, while standardized evaluation frameworks can aid regulatory strengthening. Knowledge gaps remain around the outcomes and effectiveness of HPR processes, including continuing professional development models, national licensing examinations, accreditation of health practitioner education programs, mandatory reporting obligations, remediation programs, and statutory registration of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners. Conclusion We identified key themes, issues, and evidence gaps valuable for governments, regulators, and health system leaders. We also identified evidence base limitations that warrant caution when interpreting and generalizing the results across jurisdictions and professions. Themes and findings reflect interests and concerns in high-income Anglophone countries where most literature originated. Most studies were descriptive, resulting in a low certainty of evidence. To inform regulatory design and reform, research funders and governments should prioritize evidence on regulatory outcomes, including innovative approaches we identified in our review. Additionally, a systematic approach is needed to track and evaluate the impact of regulatory interventions and innovations on achieving health workforce and health systems goals.

show abstract

“…Starting a policy‐informing process with the aim of regulating practice and certifying providers will require cooperation among national authorities, organizations, local and international associations, implementation of management and leadership transparency, investment of time and financial resources. In fact, studies have stressed the importance of professional associations' capacities and cooperation, development of statutory regulation models and delivery of life‐long learning; and demonstrated that associations' accountability and leadership for self‐regulation can lead towards more patient safety 44–48 . Concepts and experiences of high‐income countries need to be transferred with caution when considered for low and middle‐income countries 49 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory environment for complementary and alternative medicine in Georgia—a health policy analysis

Nadareishvili

Pkhakadze

Japiashvili

et al. 2021

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International bodies such as the WHO call on member states to regulate and, where possible, integrate Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) into health systems, to the benefit and safety of patients. Research on CAM regulations in the Republic of Georgia has been limited. The aim of this study was to identify key actors and analyse the regulatory environment for CAM in Georgia in its local and international contexts. We conducted a health policy analysis using a triangle framework of content, context and processes. We used data from national government, professional associations and academia; and drew from primary qualitative data of stakeholders' perspectives and needs regarding CAM in Georgia. The several CAM associations we identified have limited capacities for self‐regulation. CAM practices are currently not effectively regulated in Georgia, while the government has no expressed intention to develop regulatory frameworks. Georgia's CAM health policy is currently not compliant with WHO and European directives and recommendations. Government, lawmakers, public administration, academia, physicians, non‐physician CAM practitioners and other actors should constitute a national working group dedicated to CAM regulations in Georgia to identify, classify CAM practices; and develop core principles for policy making for safe and effective CAM practiced in Georgia's health system.

show abstract

Provision of complementary and alternative medicine: Compliance with the health professional requirements

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health

Complementary and alternative medicine use among older adults with musculoskeletal pain: findings from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Regulatory environment for complementary and alternative medicine in Georgia—a health policy analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About