Cover: Integrative Health Care Under Review

Integrative Health Care Under Review

An Emerging Field

Published in: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, v. 33, no. 9, Nov./Dec. 2010, p. 690-710

Posted on 2010

by Ian D. Coulter, Raheleh Khorsan, Cindy C. Crawford, An-Fu Hsiao

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the research literature for the emerging field of Integrative Medicine/Integrative Health Care (IM) using the methods of systematic review. METHODS: We conducted an electronic literature search using PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, the entire Cochrane Library, MANTIS, Social SciSearch, SciSearch Cited Ref Sci, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and NCCAM grantee publications listings from database inception to May 2009, as well as searches of the gray literature. Available studies published in English language were included. Three independent reviewers rated each article and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 11 591 citations. Of these, only 660 were judged to be relevant to the purpose of our search. Most articles deal with implementing and implemented programs. They focus on practice models, strategies for integrative health, the business case, and descriptive studies. This is followed in terms of numbers by conceptual/philosophical writings. These in turn are followed by research articles including randomized controlled trials, program evaluations, and cost-effectiveness studies. The literature reflects an emerging field in that it is focused more on how to create IM than on researching outcomes. However, the lack of definition and clarity about the term integrative medicine (also known as integrative health care) and the absence of taxonomy for models of IM make it very difficult to efficiently conduct systematic reviews of this field at the moment. CONCLUSION: Our review revealed that most articles focused on describing practice models and conceptual/philosophical models, whereas there are fewer randomized controlled trials and observation studies. The lack of consensus on a clear definition and taxonomy for integrative health care represents a major methodological barrier on conducting systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis in this emerging field.

This report is part of the RAND external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.