Integrative medicine – complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practised in mainstream healthcare organizations – combines medical treatments based on incommensurable paradigms. As the Internet has been portrayed as a crucial pathway to CAM and sites administered by reputable organizations are considered to be relatively reliable sources of medical information, the research sought to explore and compare the ways in which CAM is presented on the Internet websites of diverse medical institutions. The contents of the websites of the Ministry of Health, the Israeli Medical Association and Israeli healthcare organizations were analysed, using an interdisciplinary theory of network gatekeeping. The websites were analysed not only according to the degree to which they are considered to be informative, but also with regard to the perceptions of integration that they convey. Comparison of the websites of community healthcare organizations and hospitals indicates that while the former display CAM treatments as an attractive commodity, the latter convey a message stressing the need to subject CAM to bio-medical scrutiny. Little or no information was provided concerning a number of important issues, such as research findings about efficacy and safety, risks and ethical considerations.
AbbottRBHuiKHaysRD. (2010) Medical students’ attitudes towards complementary, alternative and integrative medicine. Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, advanced access doi:10.1093/ecam/nep19510.1093/ecam/nep195. (published 20January).
2.
AdamsJHollenbergDLuiCBroomA (2009) Contextualizing integration: A critical social science approach to integrative health care. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics32(9): 792–798.
3.
AgreP (2002) Real-time politics: The Internet and the political process. The Information Society18(5): 311–331.
4.
AndersonJRaineyMEysenbachG (2003) The impact of cyberhealthcare on the physician/patient relationship. Journal of Medical Systems27(1): 67–84.
5.
BaerHCoulterI (2008) Taking stock of integrative medicine: Broadening biomedicine or co-option of complementary and alternative medicine?Health Sociology Review17(4): 331–341.
6.
BarrettB (2003) Alternative, complementary, and conventional medicine: Is integration upon us?Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine9(3): 417–427.
7.
Barzilai-NahonK (2008) Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology59(9): 1493–1512.
8.
Barzilai-NahonK (2009) Gatekeeping: A critical review. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology43: 433–478.
9.
Ben-AryeEKarkabiKKarkabiSKeshetYHaddadMFrenkelM (2009) Attitudes of Arab and Jewish patients towards integration of complementary medicine in primary care clinics in Israel: A cross-cultural study. Social Science & Medicine68(1): 177–182.
10.
BroomA (2005) Virtually he@lthy: A study into the impact of Internet use on disease experience and the doctor/patient relationship. Qualitative Health Research15(3): 325–345.
11.
BroomA (2006) Reflections on the centrality of power in medical sociology: An empirical test and theoretical elaboration. Health Sociology Review15(5): 496–506.
12.
BroomAToveyP (2007) Therapeutic pluralism? Evidence, power and legitimacy in UK cancer services. Sociology of Health & Illness29(4): 551–569.
13.
BroomAToveyP (2008) The role of the Internet in cancer patients’ engagement with complementary and alternative treatments. health: 12(2): 139–148.
14.
BroomADoronAToveyP (2009) The inequalities of medical pluralism: Hierarchies of health, the politics of tradition and the economies of care in Indian oncology. Social Science & Medicine69(5): 698–706.
15.
CoulterI (2004) Integration and paradigm clash. In: ToveyPEasthopeGAdamsJ (eds) The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Studies in Social Context. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 103–122.
16.
DiazJGriffithRNgJReinertSFriedmannPMoultonA (2002) Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. Journal of General Internal Medicine17(3): 180–185.
17.
ErnstESchmidtK (2002) ‘Alternative’ cancer cures via the Internet?British Journal of Cancer87(5): 479–480.
18.
FoucaultM (1978 [1975]) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.
19.
FoucaultM (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–77. Brighton, UK: Harvester.
20.
FoxNWardKO’RourkeA (2005) The ‘expert patient’: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Social Science & Medicine60(6): 1299–1309.
21.
GamusDPintovS (2007) Integration of complementary and alternative medicine services in the hospital setting in Israel. Israeli Medical Association Journal9: 169–170.
22.
GoldsteinM (2004) The persistence and resurgence of medical pluralism. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 29(4–5): 925–945.
23.
GrinsteinOElhayanyAGoldbergAShvartzS (2002) Complementary medicine in Israel. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine8(4): 437–443.
24.
HardeyM (1999) Doctor in the house: The Internet as a source of health knowledge and a challenge to expertise. Sociology of Health & Illness21(6): 820–835.
25.
HardeyM (2002) ‘The story of my illness’: Personal accounts of illness on the Internet. health: 6(1): 31–46.
26.
HarrisPReesR (2000) The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among the general population: A systematic review of the literature. Complement Therapies & Medicine8(2): 88–96.
27.
HarveyKJBrownBCrawfordPMacFarlaneAMcPhersonA (2007) ‘Am I normal?’: Teenagers, sexual health and the Internet. Social Science & Medicine65(4): 771–781.
28.
HenwoodFWyattSHartASmithJ (2003) ‘Ignorance is bliss sometimes’: Constraints on the emergence of the ‘informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health & Illness25(6): 589–607.
29.
HoffmanDLNovakTPChatterjeeP (1995) Commercial scenarios for the web: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Special Issue on Electronic Commerce1(3).
30.
HollenbergD (2006) Uncharted ground: Patterns of professional interaction among complementary/alternative and biomedical practitioners in integrative health care settings. Social Science & Medicine62(3): 731–744.
HuizinghKRE (2000) The content and design of websites: An empirical study. Information & Management37: 123–134.
33.
KeshetY (2009) The untenable boundaries of biomedical knowledge: Epistemologies and rhetoric strategies in the debate over evaluating complementary and alternative medicine. health: 13(2): 131–155.
34.
KeshetY (2011) Energy medicine and hybrid knowledge construction: The formation of new cultural-epistemological rules of discourse.Cultural Sociology (forthcoming).
35.
KimPEngTRDeeringMJMaxfieldA (1999) Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. British Medical Journal318(7184): 647–649.
36.
KmietowiczZ (1997) Complementary medicine should be integrated into the NHS. British Medical Journal315(7116): 1111–1116.
37.
LewinK (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations1(2): 143–153.
38.
LewinK (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York: Harper.
39.
LucasH (2008) Information and communications technology for future health systems in developing countries. Social Science & Medicine66(10): 2122–2132.
40.
LukesS (2005) Power: A Radical View. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
LuptonD (2002) Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. In: NettletonSGustafssonU (eds) The Sociology of Health and Illness Reader. Cambridge: Polity, 360–368.
42.
MacPhersonHPetersDZollmanC (2009) Closing the evidence gap in integrative medicine: A variety of methods of evaluating complex interventions should be considered. British Medical Journal339(7724): 763.
43.
MillsSY (2001) The House of Lords report on complementary medicine: A summary. Complementary Therapies & Medicine9(1): 34–39.
44.
MizrachiNShuvalJT (2005) Between formal and enacted policy: Changing the contours of boundaries. Social Science & Medicine60(7): 1649–1660.
45.
MizrachiNShuvalJTGrossS (2005) Boundary at work: Alternative medicine in biomedical settings. Sociology of Health & Illness27(1): 20–43.
NettletonSBurrowsR (2003) E-scaped medicine? Information, reflexivity and health. Critical Social Policy23(2): 165–185.
48.
SchmidtKErnstE (2004) Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer. Annals of Oncology15(5): 733–742.
49.
ShoemakerP (1991) Gatekeeping. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
50.
ShuvalJTMizrachiNSmetannikovE (2002) Entering the well-guarded fortress: Alternative practitioners in hospital settings. Social Science & Medicine55(10): 1745–1755.
51.
SillenceEBriggsPHarrisPRFishwickL (2007) How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?Social Science & Medicine64(9): 1853–1862.
52.
SunsteinC (2006) Infotopia. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
TreiblmaierH (2007) Web site analysis: A review and assessment of previous research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems19(1): 806–843.
54.
Van DulmenSDe GrootJKosterDHeiligersP (2010) Why seek complementary medicine? An observational study in homeopathic, acupunctural and naturopathic medical practices. Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine7(1).
55.
WaljiMSagaramSSagaramD. (2004) Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: A cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. Journal of Internet Medical Research6(2): e21.
56.
White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy (2002) Final Report. Recommendation 29, Chapter 10: Recommendations and Actions. Washington, DC: White House Commission.
57.
ZieblandS (2004) The importance of being expert: The quest for cancer information on the Internet. Social Science & Medicine59(9): 1783–1793.
58.
ZieblandSChappleADumelowCEvansJPrinjhaSRozmovitsL (2004) How the Internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal328(7439): 564.
