The Integrated Taxonomy of Health Care: classifying both complementary & biomedical practices using a uniform classification protocol

Abstract

Background:Since the late 1980s, several taxonomies have been developed to help map and describe the interrelationships of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) modalities. In these taxonomies, several issues are often incompletely addressed: A simple categorization process that clearly isolates a modality to a single conceptual categoryClear delineation of verticality—that is, a differentiation of scale being observed from individually applied techniques, through modalities (therapies), to whole medical systemsRecognition of CAM as part of the general field of health careMethods:Development of the Integrated Taxonomy of Health Care (ITHC) involved three stages: Development of a precise, uniform health glossaryAnalysis of the extant taxonomiesUse of an iterative process of classifying modalities and medical systems into categories until a failure to singularly classify a modality occurred, requiring a return to the glossary and adjustment of the classifying protocolResults:A full vertical taxonomy was developed that includes and clearly differentiates between techniques, modalities, domains (clusters of similar modalities), systems of health care (coordinated care system involving multiple modalities), and integrative health care.Domains are the classical primary focus of taxonomies. The ITHC has eleven domains: chemical/substance-based work, device-based work, soft tissue–focused manipulation, skeletal manipulation, fitness/movement instruction, mind–body integration/classical somatics work, mental/emotional–based work, bio-energy work based on physical manipulation, bio-energy modulation, spiritual-based work, unique assessments. Modalities are assigned to the domains based on the primary mode of interaction with the client, according the literature of the practitioners.Conclusions:The ITHC has several strengths: little interpretation is used while successfully assigning modalities to single domains; the issue of taxonomic verticality is fully resolved; and the design fully integrates the complementary health care fields of biomedicine and CAM.

Developing a taxonomy of care coordination for people living with rare conditions: A qualitative study

“…The taxonomy presented in this paper extends previous research by formalising care coordination for rare conditions into six domains (each with different options). Whilst previous research has developed taxonomies for related concepts [16,17,18,19], this is the first research that has attempted to develop a taxonomy of care coordination for rare conditions. Findings indicate that whilst different conditions have different characteristics and challenges, it is possible to develop one taxonomy that covers a range of conditions and a range of care coordination options.…”

“…Taxonomies aim to provide clear definitions [15], and have been previously used to organise complex health care concepts including taxonomies of integrated care [16], health care [17], behaviour change [18], and the burden of treatment for patients with chronic conditions [19]. For example, the burden of treatment taxonomy included tasks that the health care system imposes on patients, factors worsening the burden of treatment and consequences of burden from the patients’ point of view [19].…”

International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (IJTMB): A Third-Year Retrospective Reflecting Google Analytics and Open Journal System Sources

“…Findley (5) Fascia research II: Second International Fascia Research Congress 6,582 Grant et al (6) Steps toward massage therapy guidelines: a first report to the profession 6,547 LeMoon (7) Clinical reasoning in massage therapy 6,000 Kania et al (8) Value of qualitative research in the study of massage therapy 5,133 Porcino and MacDougall (9) The integrated taxonomy of health care: classifying both complementary and biomedical practices using a uniform classification protocol…”

“…Also of interest in this top-10 listing is the inclusion of three entries related to the 2009 Fascia Research Congress held in Amsterdam: Minasny ( 3 ) , van der Wal ( 4 ) , and Findley ( 5 ) . And garnering “hits” in the approximate range of 6,500 to 5,000 are articles that focused on the Massage Therapy Foundation’s Best Practices Committee efforts to formulate massage therapy guidelines ( Grant et al ( 6 ) ), clinical reasoning in massage therapy ( LeMoon ( 7 ) ), qualitative research as a viable methodological option in the study of massage therapy ( Kania et al ( 8 ) ), and a taxonomy for integrating both complementary and biomedical health care practices ( Porcino and MacDougall ( 9 ) ).…”

“…Although not publicly accessible, another information source available for periodic dissemination to the journal's readership is the number of views per entry in each issue of the IJTMB.These data span not only articles per se appearing in the journal, but also editorials and entries in the Commentaries and News/Announcements sections.In the context of the 12 journal issues published through June 2011, Table 3 (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) displays-as of September 8, 2011-the 10 most frequently viewed IJTMB articles since the journal's inaugural issue in August 2008.Of particular note is the article by Zalta (2) -the Massage Therapy Foundation's 2007 Practitioner Case Report Contest Gold Award Winner-that has elicited by far the most views with 21,142 counts.Also of interest in this top-10 listing is the inclusion of three entries related to the 2009 Fascia Research Congress Glenn M. Hymel, EdD, LMT Executive Editor, IJTMB held in Amsterdam: Minasny (3) , van der Wal (4) , and Findley (5) . And garnering "hits" in the approximate range of 6,500 to 5,000 are articles that focused on the Massage Therapy Foundation's Best Practices Committee efforts to formulate massage therapy guidelines (Grant et al (6) ), clinical reasoning in massage therapy (LeMoon (7) ), qualitative research as a viable methodological option in the study of massage therapy (Kania et al (8) ), and a taxonomy for integrating both complementary and biomedical health care practices (Porcino and MacDougall (9) ). Several data-based trends and experientiallyinformed conclusions can be identified.…”