Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and Integrative Health

Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United States

Belinda J. Anderson, Sai Jurawanichkul, Benjamin E. Kligler, Paul R. Marantz, Roni Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: The combination of biomedicine and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is often referred to as integrative medicine. However, the degree to which the medical disciplines are integrated varies between medical settings, and it is believed by some to be impossible due to epistemological and paradigmatic differences. Clinicians' perspectives are important determinants of how different medical disciplines are used together. This study explores the perspectives of experienced Chinese medicine practitioners when asked about the most ethical model (opposition, integration, or pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM. Design: Thirty-one Chinese medicine practitioners, undertaking a doctoral upgrade program at the Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, participated in this study. Participants were asked to read a publication discussing three models (opposition, integration, and pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM and then discuss, via an online forum within Moodle learning management system, the most ethical model. An inductive content analysis of the forum posts was undertaken to identify common themes, followed by member checking. Results: The data were found to contain six major and six minor themes. There was a clear preference for pluralism. The Chinese medicine practitioners expressed reservations about the integrative model, and, above all, cared about the quality of patient care. Much dialogue occurred around issues related to a power imbalance within health care, and possible cooptation issues. Paradigmatic differences and a lack of compatibility between biomedical research models and the practice of Chinese medicine were seen as problematic to the validity of research findings. Interprofessional education was viewed as critical for the development of respect, shared patient care, and referrals between clinicians from different disciplines. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the issues associated with combining biomedicine and T&CM that are perceived by Chinese medicine practitioners. Such insights are important for the development and management of clinical settings that provide complementary and integrative health care, especially as the provision of insurance coverage for T&CM increases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)288-295
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

Cultural Diversity
Medicine
Health
Patient Care
Integrative Medicine
East Asian Traditional Medicine
Delivery of Health Care
Insurance Coverage
Quality of Health Care
Traditional Medicine
Complementary Therapies
Publications
Biomedical Research
Referral and Consultation
Learning
Education
Research

Keywords

  • acupuncture
  • Chinese medicine
  • complementary and integrative medicine
  • education
  • pluralism
  • qualitative
  • traditional and complementary medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Complementary and alternative medicine

Cite this

Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and Integrative Health : Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United States. / Anderson, Belinda J.; Jurawanichkul, Sai; Kligler, Benjamin E.; Marantz, Paul R.; Evans, Roni.

In: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.03.2019, p. 288-295.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a261c60e854f4c9bb96de56b31eac409,
title = "Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and Integrative Health: Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United States",
abstract = "Objectives: The combination of biomedicine and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is often referred to as integrative medicine. However, the degree to which the medical disciplines are integrated varies between medical settings, and it is believed by some to be impossible due to epistemological and paradigmatic differences. Clinicians' perspectives are important determinants of how different medical disciplines are used together. This study explores the perspectives of experienced Chinese medicine practitioners when asked about the most ethical model (opposition, integration, or pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM. Design: Thirty-one Chinese medicine practitioners, undertaking a doctoral upgrade program at the Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, participated in this study. Participants were asked to read a publication discussing three models (opposition, integration, and pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM and then discuss, via an online forum within Moodle learning management system, the most ethical model. An inductive content analysis of the forum posts was undertaken to identify common themes, followed by member checking. Results: The data were found to contain six major and six minor themes. There was a clear preference for pluralism. The Chinese medicine practitioners expressed reservations about the integrative model, and, above all, cared about the quality of patient care. Much dialogue occurred around issues related to a power imbalance within health care, and possible cooptation issues. Paradigmatic differences and a lack of compatibility between biomedical research models and the practice of Chinese medicine were seen as problematic to the validity of research findings. Interprofessional education was viewed as critical for the development of respect, shared patient care, and referrals between clinicians from different disciplines. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the issues associated with combining biomedicine and T&CM that are perceived by Chinese medicine practitioners. Such insights are important for the development and management of clinical settings that provide complementary and integrative health care, especially as the provision of insurance coverage for T&CM increases.",
keywords = "acupuncture, Chinese medicine, complementary and integrative medicine, education, pluralism, qualitative, traditional and complementary medicine",
author = "Anderson, {Belinda J.} and Sai Jurawanichkul and Kligler, {Benjamin E.} and Marantz, {Paul R.} and Roni Evans",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/acm.2018.0268",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "288--295",
journal = "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine",
issn = "1075-5535",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interdisciplinary Relationship Models for Complementary and Integrative Health

T2 - Perspectives of Chinese Medicine Practitioners in the United States

AU - Anderson, Belinda J.

AU - Jurawanichkul, Sai

AU - Kligler, Benjamin E.

AU - Marantz, Paul R.

AU - Evans, Roni

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Objectives: The combination of biomedicine and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is often referred to as integrative medicine. However, the degree to which the medical disciplines are integrated varies between medical settings, and it is believed by some to be impossible due to epistemological and paradigmatic differences. Clinicians' perspectives are important determinants of how different medical disciplines are used together. This study explores the perspectives of experienced Chinese medicine practitioners when asked about the most ethical model (opposition, integration, or pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM. Design: Thirty-one Chinese medicine practitioners, undertaking a doctoral upgrade program at the Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, participated in this study. Participants were asked to read a publication discussing three models (opposition, integration, and pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM and then discuss, via an online forum within Moodle learning management system, the most ethical model. An inductive content analysis of the forum posts was undertaken to identify common themes, followed by member checking. Results: The data were found to contain six major and six minor themes. There was a clear preference for pluralism. The Chinese medicine practitioners expressed reservations about the integrative model, and, above all, cared about the quality of patient care. Much dialogue occurred around issues related to a power imbalance within health care, and possible cooptation issues. Paradigmatic differences and a lack of compatibility between biomedical research models and the practice of Chinese medicine were seen as problematic to the validity of research findings. Interprofessional education was viewed as critical for the development of respect, shared patient care, and referrals between clinicians from different disciplines. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the issues associated with combining biomedicine and T&CM that are perceived by Chinese medicine practitioners. Such insights are important for the development and management of clinical settings that provide complementary and integrative health care, especially as the provision of insurance coverage for T&CM increases.

AB - Objectives: The combination of biomedicine and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is often referred to as integrative medicine. However, the degree to which the medical disciplines are integrated varies between medical settings, and it is believed by some to be impossible due to epistemological and paradigmatic differences. Clinicians' perspectives are important determinants of how different medical disciplines are used together. This study explores the perspectives of experienced Chinese medicine practitioners when asked about the most ethical model (opposition, integration, or pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM. Design: Thirty-one Chinese medicine practitioners, undertaking a doctoral upgrade program at the Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, participated in this study. Participants were asked to read a publication discussing three models (opposition, integration, and pluralism) for the relationship between biomedicine and T&CM and then discuss, via an online forum within Moodle learning management system, the most ethical model. An inductive content analysis of the forum posts was undertaken to identify common themes, followed by member checking. Results: The data were found to contain six major and six minor themes. There was a clear preference for pluralism. The Chinese medicine practitioners expressed reservations about the integrative model, and, above all, cared about the quality of patient care. Much dialogue occurred around issues related to a power imbalance within health care, and possible cooptation issues. Paradigmatic differences and a lack of compatibility between biomedical research models and the practice of Chinese medicine were seen as problematic to the validity of research findings. Interprofessional education was viewed as critical for the development of respect, shared patient care, and referrals between clinicians from different disciplines. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the issues associated with combining biomedicine and T&CM that are perceived by Chinese medicine practitioners. Such insights are important for the development and management of clinical settings that provide complementary and integrative health care, especially as the provision of insurance coverage for T&CM increases.

KW - acupuncture

KW - Chinese medicine

KW - complementary and integrative medicine

KW - education

KW - pluralism

KW - qualitative

KW - traditional and complementary medicine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062834584&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062834584&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/acm.2018.0268

DO - 10.1089/acm.2018.0268

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 288

EP - 295

JO - Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

JF - Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

SN - 1075-5535

IS - 3

ER -