Numerous studies and trials are conducted under the evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (EBCAM) paradigm. Some individuals view the results generated by this approach as symbolic evidential proof of complementary medicine, and as representative of practice. Such evaluations are made even though the ability to capture and reflect clinical reality by the methods used is questioned. The effect of this type of research on complementary medicine researchers and practitioners has received minimal consideration, and this article explores this subject by critically reviewing the literature and theorizing the effects on the lifeworld and values of those embodied by EBCAM.
Methods:
This review accesses the discourse of various disciplines involved with, and commenting on, complementary medicine research. Collected literature is collated within specified limits, subjected to argumentation analysis, and synthesized within a critical theory methodology. Emergent themes are examined, and the effects of EBCAM on holistic researcher and practitioner lifeworld and values are theorized via the colonization framework of critical social theorist Jürgen Habermas.
Results:
The use of an evidence-based medicine research model to investigate complementary medicine practice is not well regarded by those who critically examine its use. Within a critical theory framework, the generation and application of research resulting from EBCAM is viewed as a philosophically incongruent process arising from a dominative discourse that can colonize lifeworld. This can result in a variety of pathological symptoms that may have a detrimental effect.
Conclusions:
The application of EBCAM has the theoretical potential to damage complementary medicine culture, profession, and practice. Its ongoing use requires thought, attention, and careful revision, taking into account the lifeworld and values of researchers and practitioners. If this inclusive view can occur, knowledge generation with relevance to the whole of the professions could proceed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CooperE. Complementary and alternative medicine, when rigorous, can be science. Evid Based Complement Altern Med, 2004; 1:1–4.
2.
KaneM. Research Made Easy in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2004.
3.
AdamsJ. Researching Complementary and Alternative Medicine. London: Routledge, 2007.
4.
BensoussanA, LewithG. Complementary medicine research in Australia: A strategy for the future. Med J Aust, 2004; 181:331–334.
5.
HansenK, KappelK. The proper role of evidence in complementary/alternative medicine. J Med Philosophy, 2010; 35:7–18.
6.
WilsonK, MillsE. Introducing evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: Answering the challenge. J Altern Complement Med, 2002; 8:103–105.
7.
AttenaF. Causal models in conventional and non-conventional medicines. Med Hypotheses, 1999; 53:177–183.
8.
McGuireW. Beyond EBM: New directions for evidence-based public health. Perspect Biol Med, 2005; 48:557–569.
9.
De SimoneJ. Reductionist inference based medicine, ie EBM. J Eval Clin Pract, 2006; 12:445–449.
10.
BarrettB, MarchandL, SchederJet al.Themes of holism, empowerment, access, and legitimacy define complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in relation to conventional biomedicine. J Altern Complement Med, 2003; 9:937–947.
11.
BarrettB, MarchandL, SchederJet al.What complementary and alternative medicine practitioners say about health and health care. Ann Fam Med, 2004; 2:253–259.
12.
CoulterI. Integration and Paradigm Clash. ToveyP, EasthopeG, AdamsJ. The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social Context. London: Routledge, 2004; 103–119.
13.
LeachM. Clinical Decision Making in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Sydney: Elsevier, 2010.
14.
SarrisJ, WardleJ. Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-Based Guide to practice. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone, 2010.
15.
BoonH, MacPhersonH, FleishmanSet al.Evaluating complex healthcare systems: A critique of four approaches. Evid Based Complement Altern Med, 2007; 4:279–285.
16.
JagtenbergT, EvansS, GrantAet al.Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy. J Altern Complement Med, 2006; 12:323–328.
AickinM. Comparative effectiveness research and CAM. J Altern Complement Med, 2010; 16:1–2.
19.
HymanM. The evolution of research: Meeting the needs of system medicine, Part 1. Altern Ther Health Med, 2006; 12:10–11.
20.
HymanM. The evolution of research, part 2: The clinician's dilemma: Treating systems, not diseases. Altern Ther Health Med, 2006; 12:10–13.
21.
KimYJ, PhamDD. Understanding oriental medicine using a systems approach. Evid Based Complement Altern Med, 2011; 624304.
22.
PatersonC, BaartsC, LaunsoL, VerhoefM. Evaluating complex health interventions: A critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2009; 9:18.
23.
WillichS. Effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine: Call for a “black box” research agenda. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 2005; 11:239–240.
24.
JonasW, ChezR, DuffyB, StrandD. Investigating the impact of optimal healing environments. Altern Ther Health Med, 2003; 9:36–40.
25.
SutherlandE, RitenbaughC. The practitioner as medicine. J Altern Complement Med, 2004; 10:13–15.
26.
KeshetY. Hybrid knowledge and research on the efficacy of alternative and complementary medicine treatments. Social Epistemol J Knowl Culture Policy, 2010; 24:331–347.
27.
PedersenI, BaartsC. 'Fantastic hands'—But no evidence: The construction of expertise by users of CAM. Soc Sci Med, 2010; 71:1068–1075.
28.
QuahS. Traditional healing systems and the ethos of science. Soc Sci Med, 2003; 57:1997–2012.
29.
JonasW. The evidence house: How to build an inclusive base for complementary medicine. West J Med, 2001; 175:79–80.
30.
WalachH, FalkenbergT, FonneboVet al.Circular instead of hierarchical: Methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2006; 6:29–37.
31.
WhiteleggM. Goethean science: An alternative approach. J Altern Complement Med, 2003; 9:311–320.
32.
JonasW, LewithG. Towards standards of evidence for CAM research and practice. LewithG, JonasW, WalachH. Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies: Principles, Problems and Solutions. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2011; 3–42.
33.
RitenbaughC, VerhoefM, FleishmanSet al.Whole systems research: A discipline for studying complementary and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med, 2003; 9:32–36.
34.
RitenbaughC, HammerschlagR, CalabreseCet al.A pilot whole systems clinical trial of Traditional Chinese Medicine and naturopathic medicine for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. J Altern Complement Med, 2008; 14:475–487.
35.
GreeneA, McCaffreyA, SiroisF, WalshE. Perceived benefits of complementary and alternative medicine: A whole systems research perspective. Open Complement Med J, 2009; 1:35–45.
36.
VerhoefM, LewithG, RitenbaughCet al.Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: Beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT. Complement Ther Med, 2005; 13:206–212.
37.
BellI, LewisD, LewisSet al.Strength of vital force in classical homeopathy: Bio-psycho-social-spiritual correlates within a complex systems context. J Altern Complement Med, 2004; 10:123–131.
38.
SchwartzG, SchlossE. World hypotheses and the evolution of integrative medicine: Combining categorical diagnoses and cause-effect interventions with whole systems research and nonvisualizable (seemingly “impossible”) healing. Explore J Sci Heal, 2006; 2:509–514.
39.
CaspiO, BellI. One size does not fit all: Aptitude×treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for complementary and alternative medicine outcome research. Part 1—What is ATI research?J Altern Complement Med, 2004; 10:580–586.
40.
HermanP, ShermanK, ErroJet al.A method for describing and evaluating naturopathic whole practice. Altern Ther Health Med, 2006; 12:20–28.
41.
ZickS, SchwablH, FlowerAet al.Unique aspects of herbal whole system research. Explore J Sci Heal, 2009; 5:97–103.
42.
BellI, BaldwinC, SchwartzG, RussekL. Integrating belief systems and therapies in medicine: Application of the eight world hypotheses to classical homeopathy. Integrat Med, 1999; 1:95–105.
43.
PatersonC. The colonization of the lifeworld of acupuncture: The SAR Conference. J Altern Complement Med, 2008; 14:105–106.
AdamsJ, ToveyP. Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Nursing and Midwifery: Towards a Critical Social Science. London: Routledge, 2008.
46.
DugganR. Redefining medicine for the 21st century: Reflections on values and principles: A personal view. J Altern Complement Med, 1997; 3:83–86.
47.
SchneirovM, GeczikJ. A diagnosis for our times: Alternative health's submerged networks and the transformation of identities. Sociol Q, 1996; 37:627–644.
48.
SchneirovM, GeczikJ. A Diagnosis for Our Times: Alternative Health, from Lifeworld to Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.
49.
WalachH. The campaign against CAM and the notion of “evidence-based.”J Altern Complement Med, 2009; 15:1139–1142.
50.
BarryC. The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Soc Sci Med, 2006; 62:2646–2657.
51.
WillisE, WhiteK. Evidence-based medicine and CAM. ToveyP, EasthopeP, AdamsJ. The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social Context. New York: Routledge, 2004; 49–63.
52.
KrizovaE. Alternative medicine: A dispute on truth, power or money?Rehmann-SutterC, DüwellM, MiethD. Bioethics in cultural contexts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006; 197–210.
53.
AdamsJ, HollenbergD, LuiC-W, BroomA. Contextualizing integration: A critical social science approach to integrative health care. J Manip Physiol Ther, 2009; 32:792–798.
54.
KeshetY. The untenable boundaries of biomedical knowledge: Epistemologies and rhetoric strategies in the debate over evaluating complementary and alternative medicine. Health, 2009; 13:131–155.
55.
KaptchukT, EisenbergD. Varieties of healing. 2: A taxonomy of unconventional healing practices. Ann Intern Med, 2001; 135:196–201.
56.
ZollmanC, VickersA. What is complementary medicine?BMJ, 1999; 319:693–696.
57.
LowJ. Alternative, complementary or concurrent health care? A critical analysis of the use of the concept of complementary therapy. Complement Ther Med, 2001; 9:105–110.
58.
WinnickT. From quackery to 'complementary' medicine: The American medical profession confronts alternative therapies. Soc Problems, 2005; 52:38–61.
59.
CoulterI, WillisE. The rise and rise of complementary and alternative medicine: A sociological perspective. Med J Aust, 2004; 180:587–590.
60.
CaspiO, SechrestL, PitlukH, MarshallC, BellI, NichterM. On the definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: Societal mega-stereotypes vs. the patients' perspectives. Altern Ther Health Med, 2003; 9:58–63.
61.
BroomA. Reflections on the centrality of power in medical sociology: An empirical test and theoretical elaboration. Health Sociol Rev, 2006; 15:496–505.
62.
WalachH. Complementary or integrative: Ideas and notions. Forsch Komplemenarmed, 2010; 17:215–220.
63.
DarlingD. Cosmic connections: Holism as a universal trait. J Altern Complement Med, 2005; 11:5–6.
64.
SmutsJ. Holism and Evolution, 3rd. London: MacMillan, 1936.
LooijenR. Holism and Reductionism in Biology and Ecology: The Mutual Dependence of Higher and Lower Level Research Programmes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
67.
Meyer-AbichK. Human health in nature: Towards a holistic philosophy of nutrition. Public Health Nutr, 2007; 8:738–742.
68.
LawrenceC, WeiszG. Greater Than the Parts: Holism in Biomedicine, 1920–1950. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
69.
EndacottM. Complementary medicine is holism in practice: The view of the ICM. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery, 1999; 5:115–117.
70.
BaumM. Concepts of holism in orthodox and alternative medicine. Clin Med, 2010; 10:37–40.
71.
PetersD. Is complementary medicine holistic?VickersA. Examining Complementary Medicine: The Sceptical Holist. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd, 2003; 138–146.
72.
MyersS, HunterA, SniderP, ZeffJ. Naturopathic medicine. RobsonT. An Introduction to Complementary Medicine. Crow's Nest: Allen and Unwin, 2003; 48–66.
73.
CarlsonR. Holism and reductionism as perspectives in medicine and patient care. West J Med, 1979; 131:466.
74.
StoneJ, KatzJ. Can complementary and alternative medicine be classified?HellerT, Lee-TreweekG, KatzJ, SpurrS. Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Abingdon: Routledge, 2003; 33–58.
75.
BaronovD. The Conceptual Foundations of Social Research Methods. London: Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
76.
HartC. Doing a Literature Review. Releasing the Social Science Imagination. London: Sage, 1998.
77.
ErduranS, SimonS, OsborneJ. TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci Educ, 2004; 88:915–933.
78.
MorrowR, BrownD. Critical Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
79.
HabermasJ. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987.
80.
HabermasJ. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987.
81.
ScamblerG. Habermas, Critical Theory and Health. London: Routledge, 2001.
LambertH. Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine. Soc Sci Med, 2006; 62:2633–2645.
89.
BaerH. The growing legitimation of complementary medicine in Australia: Successes and dilemmas. Aust J Med Herbalism, 2008; 20:5–11.
90.
Villanueva-RussellY. Evidence-based medicine and its implications for the profession of chiropractic. Soc Sci Med, 2005; 60:545–561.
91.
RadfordM. Complexity and truth in educational research. Educ Phil Theory, 2008; 40:144–157.
92.
IyiohaI. Law's dilemma: Validating complementary and alternative medicine and the clash of evidential paradigms. Evidence Based Complement Altern Med, 2011; 389518.
93.
GoldenbergM. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med, 2006; 62:2621–2632.
94.
AndersenH. The history of reductionism versus holistic approaches to scientific research. Endeavour, 2001; 25:153–156.
95.
RichardsonJ. Evidence-based complementary medicine: Rigour, relevance, and the swampy lowlands. Lee-TreweekG, HellerT, SpurrSet al.Perspective on Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Reader. London: Routledge, 2005; 287–291.
96.
BaerH. The drive for legitimation by osteopathy and chiropractic in Australia: Between heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Complement Health Pract Rev, 2006; 11:77–94.
97.
CantS. From charismatic teaching to professional training: The legitimation of knowledge and the creation of trust in homeopathy and chiropractic. Lee-TreweekG, HellerT, SpurrS, MacQueenH, KatzJ. Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Reader. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005; 222–230.
98.
EvansS. Changing the knowledge base in Western herbal medicine. Soc Sci Med, 2008; 67:2098–2106.
99.
EskinaziD. Factors that shape alternative medicine: The role of the alternative medicine research community. Altern Ther Health Med, 2000; 6:49–53.
100.
DerkatchC. Method as argument: Boundary work in evidence-based medicine. Soc Epistemol, 2008; 22:371–388.
101.
PolichG, DoleC, KaptchukT. The need to act a little more 'scientific': Biomedical researchers investigating complementary and alternative medicine. Soc Health Illness, 2009; 32:1–17.
102.
VickersA. Evidence-based medicine and complementary medicine. Evid Based Mental Health, 1999; 2:102–103.
103.
FonneboV, GrimsgaardS, WalachHet al.Researching complementary and alternative treatments: The gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007; 7:7–13.
104.
TilburtJ. Whose evidence, which methods? Ethical challenges in complementary and alternative medicine research. SnyderL. Complementary and alternative medicine: Ethics, the patient, and the physician. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2007; 201–230.
105.
BoltonJE. Research practice and clinical practice: As far apart as ever?Clin Chiropract, 2003; 6:92–94.
106.
MendelJ. Scientific, philosophical and social informants of holistic health care. Aust J Holistic Nurs, 2003; 10:13–21.
107.
BorgersonK. Evidence-based alternative medicine?Perspect Biol Med, 2005; 48:502–515.
108.
TilburtJ, CurlinF, KaptchukTet al.Alternative medicine research in clinical practice: A US national survey. Arch Intern Med, 2009; 169:670–677.
109.
RyanJ. Clinical decision-making in complementary medicine: The use of evidence. J Aust Trad Med Society, 2007; 13:81.
110.
JonasW. Scientific evidence and medical practice: The “drunkard's walk.”Arch Intern Med, 2009; 169:649–650.
111.
CoulterI. Evidence based complementary and alternative medicine: Promises and problems. Forsch Komplementrmed, 2007; 14:102–108.
112.
JacksonS, ScamblerG. Perceptions of evidence-based medicine: Traditional acupuncturists in the UK and resistance to biomedical modes of evaluation. Sociol Health Illness, 2007; 29:412–429.
113.
MorreimE. A dose of our own medicine: Alternative medicine, conventional medicine, and the standards of science. J Law Med Ethics, 2003; 31:222–235.
114.
FanR. Modern western science as a standard for traditional Chinese medicine: A critical appraisal. J Law Med Ethics, 2003; 31:213–221.
115.
SchneirovM, GeczikJ. Alternative health and the challenges of institutionalization. Health Interdiscipl J Soc Study Health Illness Med, 2002; 6:201–220.
116.
GermondP, CochraneJ. Healthworlds: Conceptualizing landscapes of health and healing. Sociology, 2010; 44:307–324.
117.
BishopF, YardleyL, LewithG. A systematic review of beliefs involved in the use of complementary and alternative medicine. J Health Psychol, 2007; 12:851–867.
118.
SheffieldJ. Inquiry in health knowledge management. J Knowl Manage, 2008; 12:160–172.
119.
TauberA. Medicine and the call for a moral epistemology. Perspect Biol Med, 2005; 48:42–53.
120.
TauberA. Medicine and the call for a moral epistemology, Part II. Perspect Biol Med, 2008; 51:450–463.
FrondiziR. What is Value? An Introduction to Axiology, 2nd. La Salle: Open Court Publishing Company, 1971.
123.
McNiffJ, WhiteheadJ. Doing and Writing Action Research. London: Sage, 2009.
124.
MasonT, HinmanP, SadikRet al.Values of reductionism and values of holism. McCarthyJ, RoseP. Values-Based Health and Social Care: Beyond Evidence-Based Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2010; 70–96.
125.
MertzM. Complementary and alternative medicine: The challenges of ethical justification. Med Health Care Philosophy, 2007; 10:329–345.
126.
MidgleyG. Science as systemic intervention: Some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Systemic Pract Action Res, 2003; 16:77–97.
127.
MilesA. On a medicine of the whole person: Away from scientistic reductionism and towards the embrace of the complex in clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract, 2009; 15:941–949.
128.
WhiteheadJ, McNiffJ. Action Research: Living Theory. London: Sage, 2006.
EdgarE. The Philosophy of Habermas. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2005.
131.
CrossleyN. Key Concepts in Critical Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
132.
EyermanR. False consciousness and ideology in Marxist theory. Acta Sociol, 1981; 24:43.
133.
ZickS, BennR. Bridging CAM practice and research: Teaching CAM practitioners about research methodologies. Altern Ther Health Med, 2004; 10:50–56.
134.
SingerJ, FisherK. The impact of co-option on herbalism: A bifurcation in epistemology and practice. Health Sociol Rev, 2007; 16:18–26.
135.
SuterE, VanderheydenL, TrojanLet al.How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists?J Manip Physiol Ther, 2007; 30:109–115.
136.
DewK. Borderland Practices: Regulating Alternative Therapies in New Zealand. Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 2003.
137.
StrechD, TilburtJ. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008; 61:521–524.
138.
TauberA. The ethical imperative of holism in medicine. Van RegenmortelM, HillD. Promises and Limits of Reductionism in the Biomedical Sciences. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2002; 261–278.
139.
ErnstE, CohenM, StoneJ. Ethical problems arising in evidence based complementary and alternative medicine. J Med Ethics, 2004; 30:156–159.
140.
TeddlieC, TashakkoriA. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
141.
OnwuegbuzieA. Why can't we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Education, 2002; 122:518–530.
142.
DenzinN, LincolnY. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
143.
DevischI, MurrayS. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident': Deconstructing 'evidence-based' medical practice. J Eval Clin Pract, 2009; 15:950–954.
HolmesD, MurrayS, PerronA, RailG. Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: Truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Healthcare, 2006; 4:180–186.
146.
ErnstE. Complementary/alternative medicine: Engulfed by postmodernism, anti-science and regressive thinking. Br J Gen Pract, 2009; 59:298–301.
147.
LeiboviciL, HaynesR. Alternative (complementary) medicine: A cuckoo in the nest of empiricist reed warblers. BMJ, 1999; 319:1629–1631.
