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

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

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.jmptonline.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

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 Corporation 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.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation 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.