Quantitative Methods in Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Levin, Jeffrey S.; Glass, Thomas A.; Kushi, Lawrence H.; Schuck, John R.; Steele, Lea; Jonas, Wayne B.

doi:10.1097/00005650-199711000-00001

Cited by 97 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early in its existence, the OAM held meetings discussing how to better incorporate patients into research decisions (a precursor to patient-centered care), do more pragmatic, whole systems comparisons (a precursor to a range of pragmatic and comparative effectiveness research studies), and the need for real-world epidemiological studies (a precursor to big data and ‘population health') [11]. The idea of ‘integrated' teams of practitioners, all focused on the best outcome for the patient, foreshadowed the ‘patient-centered medical home' movement [15,16]. Most of these issues emerged when the OAM held the first NIH conference on definitions and epistemology [9].…”

Section: What Is In a Name? Perhaps Everythingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the USA over the Last 20 Years

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical practices that reside outside the mainstream medical structures have existed for centuries, often waxing and waning in prominence and use for various reasons. Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest and use of such practices in the USA generally referred to under the label of ‘complementary and alternative medicine' (CAM). In this article we summarize some of the highlight events that punctuated this resurgence over the last 20 years. As in the past, social forces affecting these trends circulate around power, resources, and scope of practice. However, a prominent feature of this dynamic is a discussion about the role of science and ‘evidence-based medicine' in addressing pluralistic healthcare-related practices. In the early years of this period, attempts to formulate the place of CAM practices as they relate to epistemology, nonconventional assumptions about health and healing, and the complexity of understanding ‘whole systems' were discussed and often examined. Less attention is being paid to those core assumptions in more recent times. The focus now seems to be on how CAM practices can be judiciously and effectively ‘integrated' into mainstream medicine. Examples of how this dynamic is evolving are described.

show abstract

Section: What Is In a Name? Perhaps Everythingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the USA over the Last 20 Years

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ability of quantitative researchers to reduce data to numbers is seen as the major strong point of the quantitative approach in healthcare (Levin et al, 1997;Curry et al, 2006;Caldwell et al, 2005;Nicholls, 2011). Findings are more likely to be accepted if they are quantified (Greenhalgh and Taylor, 1997).…”

Section: Quantitative Research Its Benefits and Pathologies In Healtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving the qualitative-quantitative debate in healthcare research

Turyahikayo¹

2014

Med. Pract. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article was set out to examine the allegations labeled against qualitative research by quantitative researchers. The allegations were that: it is subjective, difficult to replicate in healthcare, and this amounts to little more than anecdote, personal impression or conjecture. In attempting to resolve the allegations, this article relied on extensive literature review and examined evidence that has been put forth in support of qualitative research approach in healthcare. The article also examined the benefits and pathologies of quantitative and qualitative approaches. It is revealed that although each of the two approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, none can ably offer practical solutions to challenges of validity and reliability in healthcare research. To mitigate such challenges, the paper rests on the use of mixed methods/triangulation so as to neutralize pathologies inherent in each approach. It is recommended that the use of triangulation should be founded on the strong basis of pragmatism. Method integration should be done skillfully and cautiously, because validity and reliability of its findings may not be guaranteed due to its susceptibility to the ontological and epistemological positions of the researcher. The paper concludes that any attempt to resolve this debate creates even more discussions and finds this third paradigm inadequate in some research circumstances. This implies that the debate is far from over.

show abstract

“…This model was also used successfully in a RCT on the treatment of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with Chinese herbal medicine showing better improvement in patients treated with individualized Chinese herbal formulae than standard TCM treatment and placebo groups [21]. The Medical Research Council in the UK [41], the NIH in the US [42] and WHO [43] have established guidelines on the research methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of CAM. All these recognize that conventional research methodology may not be applicable and recommended syndrome differenitaion in clinical trials.…”

Section: Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Traditional Chinese Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%