BackgroundMedical pluralism has flourished throughout the Western world in spite of efforts to legitimize Western biomedical healthcare as “conventional medicine” and thereby relegate all non-physician-related forms of healthcare to an “other” category. These “other” practitioners have been referred to as “unconventional”, “alternative” and “complementary”, among other terms throughout the past half century.MethodsThis study investigates the discourses surrounding the changes in the terms, and their meanings, used to describe unconventional medicine in North America. Terms identified by the literature as synonymous to unconventional medicine were searched using the Scopus database. A textual analysis following the method described by Kripendorff 2013 was subsequently performed on the five most highly-cited unconventional medicine-related peer-reviewed literature published between 1970 and 2013.ResultsFive commonly-used, unconventional medicine-related terms were identified. Authors using “complementary and alternative”, “complementary”, “alternative”, or “unconventional” tended to define them by what they are not (e.g., therapies not taught/used in conventional medicine, therapy demands not met by conventional medicine, and therapies that lack research on safety, efficacy and effectiveness). Authors defined “integrated/integrative” medicine by what it is (e.g., a new model of healthcare, the combining of both conventional and unconventional therapies, accounting for the whole person, and preventative maintenance of health). Authors who defined terms by “what is not” stressed that the purpose of conducting research in this area was solely to create knowledge. Comparatively, authors who defined terms by “what is” sought to advocate for the evidence-based combination of unconventional and conventional medicines. Both author groups used scientific rhetoric to define unconventional medical practices.ConclusionsThis emergence of two groups of authors who used two different sets of terms to refer to the concept of “unconventional medicine” may explain why some journals, practitioner associations and research/practice centres may choose to use both “what is not” and “what is” terms in their discourse to attract interest from both groups. Since each of the two groups of terms (and authors who use them) has different meanings and goals, the evolution of this discourse will continue to be an interesting phenomenon to explore in the future.

Background:Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of polypharmacy as they have the highest pill burden of all chronically ill patient populations, with an estimated average of 12 medications per day.Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate prescribing patterns of outpatient medications in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. This was done to identify potential candidate medications for future quality improvement initiations to optimize prescribing.Design:We conducted a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study in the province of Ontario, Canada, using several linked health care databases housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES).Setting:We considered outpatient medications dispensed to patients eligible for the Ontario Drug Benefit program.Patients:Patients were receiving chronic in-center hemodialysis at one of the 69 facilities in the province of Ontario, Canada as of October 1, 2013.Measurements:We assessed whether any of our 28 study medications of interest were recently dispensed (within the prior 120 days), the type of prescribing physician, and the associated medication costs. The 28 included medications of interest (ie, proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines) were selected because they may not have a true indication for dialysis patients and/or there are safety concerns with their use in this population. Results are presented as median (25th, 75th percentile).Methods:We conducted this study at ICES according to a prespecified protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario).Results:A total of 3094 patients on chronic in-center hemodialysis received a study drug of interest (age: 76.5 years [SD: 7.3]), 44% women). Patients were dispensed 11 (8, 14) unique medication products with more than two-thirds of patients dispensed 9 or more different medications. The median number of annual health care visits was 7 (3-15) with more than half the cohort receiving prescriptions from 3 or more specialists. The 10 most commonly dispensed study medications cost more than 3 million dollars in direct costs in 1 year.Limitations:Our study was also subjected to some limitations of health care databases.Conclusions:Polypharmacy is frequent in in-center hemodialysis patients. To decrease polypharmacy and its associated negative outcomes, health care providers need to implement tools to optimize medication use and deprescribe medications that lack evidence for efficacy and safety in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, strategies to improve prescribing and discontinue ineffective medications warrant testing for better patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Background: Medical cannabis has been legally available in Canada since 2001, but its benefits and harms remain uncertain. We explored attitudes toward medical cannabis among family physicians practising in Ontario.Methods: Between January and October 2019, we conducted a qualitative study of Ontario family physicians using semistructured telephone interviews. We applied thematic analysis to interview transcripts and identified representative quotes.Results: Eleven physicians agreed to be interviewed, and 3 themes regarding medical cannabis emerged: reluctance to authorize use, concern over harms and lack of practical knowledge. Participants raised concerns about the limited evidence for, and their lack of education regarding, the therapeutic use of cannabis, particularly the harms associated with neurocognitive development, exacerbation of mental illness and drug interactions in older adults. Some participants thought medical cannabis was overly accessible and questioned their role following legalization of recreational cannabis.Interpretation: Despite the increasing availability of medical cannabis, family physicians expressed reluctance to authorize its use because of lack of knowledge and concerns regarding harms. Family physicians may benefit from guidance and education that address concerns they have surrounding medical cannabis.

No abstract

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and responsible for a global pandemic. Despite there being no known vaccines or medicines that prevent or cure COVID-19, many traditional, integrative, complementary and alternative medicines (TICAMs) have been touted as the solution, as well as researched as a potential remedy globally. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of global research trends at the intersection of TICAM and COVID-19. Methods SCOPUS, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and PSYCINFO databases were searched on July 5, 2020, with results being exported on the same day. All publication types were included, however, articles were only deemed eligible if they made mention of one or more TICAMs for the potential prevention, treatment, and/or management of COVID-19 or a health issue indirectly resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The following eligible article characteristics were extracted: title; author names, affiliations, and countries; DOI; publication language; publication type; publication year; journal (and whether it is TICAM-focused); 2019 impact factor, and TICAMs mentioned. Results A total of 296 eligible articles were published by 1373 unique authors at 977 affiliations across 56 countries. The most common countries associated with author affiliation included China, the United States, India and Italy. The vast majority of articles were published in English, followed by Chinese. Eligible articles were published across 157 journals, of which 33 were TICAM-focused; a total of 120 journals had a 2019 impact factor, which ranged from 0.17 to 60.392. A total of 327 TICAMs were mentioned across eligible articles, with the most common ones including: traditional Chinese medicine (n = 94), vitamin D (n = 67), melatonin (n = 16), phytochemicals (n = 12), and general herbal medicine (n = 11). Conclusions This study provides researchers and clinicians with a greater knowledge of the characteristics of articles that been published globally at the intersection of COVID-19 and TICAM to date. At a time where safe and effective vaccines and medicines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 have yet to be discovered, this study provides a current snapshot of the quantity and characteristics of articles written at the intersection of TICAM therapies and COVID-19.

Background Identifying what therapies constitute complementary, alternative, and/or integrative medicine (CAIM) is complex for a multitude of reasons. An operational definition is dynamic, and changes based on both historical time period and geographical location whereby many jurisdictions may integrate or consider their traditional system(s) of medicine as conventional care. To date, only one operational definition of “complementary and alternative medicine” has been proposed, by Cochrane researchers in 2011. This definition is not only over a decade old but also did not use systematic methods to compile the therapies. Furthermore, it did not capture the concept “integrative medicine”, which is an increasingly popular aspect of the use of complementary therapies in practice. An updated operational definition reflective of CAIM is warranted given the rapidly increasing body of CAIM research literature published each year. Methods Four peer-reviewed or otherwise quality-assessed information resource types were used to inform the development of the operational definition: peer-reviewed articles resulting from searches across seven academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science); the “aims and scope” webpages of peer-reviewed CAIM journals; CAIM entries found in online encyclopedias, and highly-ranked websites identified through searches of CAIM-related terms on HONcode. Screening of eligible resources, and data extraction of CAIM therapies across them, were each conducted independently and in duplicate. CAIM therapies across eligible sources were deduplicated. Results A total of 101 eligible resources were identified: peer-reviewed articles (n = 19), journal “aims and scope” webpages (n = 22), encyclopedia entries (n = 11), and HONcode-searched websites (n = 49). Six hundred four unique CAIM terms were included in this operational definition. Conclusions This updated operational definition is the first to be informed by systematic methods, and could support the harmonization of CAIM-related research through the provision of a standard of classification, as well as support improved collaboration between different research groups.

Background Pharmacists are recognized as one of the most accessible healthcare providers and are licensed to advise patients on drugs and health products including dietary and herbal supplements (DHSs). The objective of this study was to identify barriers, knowledge, and training that pharmacists report related to DHSs counselling. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL were systematically searched from database inception to May 8th, 2020. Eligible articles contained qualitative data with a specific focus on pharmacists’ perceived knowledge, training, and barriers to DHSs counselling. Relevant data were extracted, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Results Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. The following three main themes were identified: challenges to pharmacists obtaining DHSs education, postgraduate workplace challenges surrounding DHSs, and pharmacists’ perceived role and importance on DHSs. Low knowledge of DHSs and the limited regulations surrounding DHSs acting as a barrier to counselling were common findings supported by the eligible articles. Conclusions A lack of pharmacists’ knowledge and awareness of DHSs stems from a variety of factors including a lack of education and training in the field, limited regulations surrounding DHSs, and inadequate availability of DHS information resources in the pharmacy. Pharmacists were unable to confidently counsel patients due to these aforementioned factors in addition to reporting that they lacked time. Further research that reviews pharmacy education and workplace training, and improving DHS regulations are warranted future directions.

Background Sleep disorders encompass a wide range of conditions which affect the quality and quantity of sleep, with insomnia being a specific type of sleep disorder of focus in this review. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is often utilized for various sleep disorders. Approximately 4.5% of individuals diagnosed with insomnia in the United States have used a CAM therapy to treat their condition. This systematic review identifies the quantity and assesses the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) which contain CAM recommendations for insomnia. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2009 to 2020, along with the Guidelines International Network, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health website, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Emergency Care Research Institute. CPGs which focused on the treatment and/or management of insomnia in adults were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results From 277 total results, 250 results were unique, 9 CPGs mentioned CAM for insomnia, and 6 out of the 9 made CAM recommendations relevant to insomnia. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were scope and purpose, clarity of presentation, editorial independence, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, and applicability. Quality varied within and across CPGs. Conclusions The CPGs which contained CAM recommendations for insomnia and which scored well could be used by health care professionals and patients to discuss the use of CAM therapies for the treatment/management of insomnia, while CPGs which scored lower could be improved in future updates according to AGREE II.