This paper considers the problem of evaluating multimodal integrative medicine treatments for complex pathologic conditions. The example is given of evaluation of highly successful treatments of lymphedema using Ayurvedic and Yoga medicine practices together with modern medicine. For a framework to evaluate such a complex intervention, we base our proposal on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.

No abstract

It is evident that integration at the therapeutic level is possible, although the pathological basis is interpreted differently. Irrespective of background understanding of the given disease, a mutually oriented multisystem therapeutic team was able to effectively use medicines from more than one system of medicine and to develop guidelines for their prescription and a patient care algorithm.

Self care and integrative treatment is possible in resource poor Indian village settings. Further work is needed to explore factors leading to better compliance by randomizing the interventions such as washing and emollient compression vs Ayurvedic and yoga interventions before integrative treatment is considered for national health programmes in developing countries.

BackgroundThe Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis aims to interrupt transmission of lymphatic filariasis and manage morbidity in people currently living with the disease. A component of morbidity management is improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients. Measurement of HRQoL in current management programs is varied because of the lack of a standard HRQoL tool for use in the lymphatic filariasis population.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn this study, the psychometric properties of three health status measures were compared when used in a group of lymphatic filariasis patients and healthy controls. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and the Lymphatic Filariasis Quality of Life Questionnaire (LFSQQ) were administered to 36 stage II and stage III lymphatic filariasis subjects and 36 age and sex matched controls in Kerala, India. All three tools yielded missing value rates lower than 10%, suggesting high feasibility. Highest internal consistency was seen in the LFSQQ (α = 0.97). Discriminant validity analysis demonstrated that HRQoL was significantly lower in the LF group than in controls for the WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ, but total HRQoL scores did not differ between stage II and stage III lymphedema subjects. The LFSQQ total score correlated most strongly with the WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.91, p<0.001) and DLQI (r = 0.81, p<0.001).Conclusions/SignificanceThe WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ demonstrate acceptable feasibility, internal consistency, discriminate validity, and construct validity. Based on our psychometric analyses, the LFSQQ performs the best and is recommended for use in the lymphatic filariasis population.