The status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in biomedical education: towards a critical engagement

Adams, J; Broom, A

The status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in biomedical education: towards a critical engagement

Adams, J

Broom, A

Permalink

Publisher:: Routledge
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Handbook of the Sociology of Medical Education, 2009, 1st, pp. 1 - 296
Issue Date:: 2009-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2010006461OK.pdf		1.16 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Adams, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9901-5717	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Broom, A	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Brosnan, C	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Turner, BS	en_US
dc.date.issued	2009-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Handbook of the Sociology of Medical Education, 2009, 1st, pp. 1 - 296	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	978-0-415-46044-6	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/14299
dc.description.abstract	Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become increasingly prominent over the last three decades with more individuals using CAM in combination with, or as an alternative to, biomedical treatments. In addition to this resurgence in consumer interest in CAM modalities, health-insurance companies in the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand now fund selected CAM therapies such as chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, homoeopathy and healing-touch therapy for certain medical conditions (Cassileth 1999). While there is still only limited and sporadic provision of CAM in mainstream western medical contexts, consumer interest, health-insurance rebates and political impetus have provided some degree of momentum toward the development of 'integrative' approaches to patient care. Progress has been slow in terms of actual mainstream integration of CAM practices, yet doctors are increasingly faced with patients wanting to discuss CAM-related issues. In areas such as cancer care or the treatment of other chronic illness, CAM use is traditionally high (Thome et at. 2002) and discussions about non-biomedical options are frequent and are valued by patients (Tovey and Broom 2007). However, the skill and knowledge base of practising clinicians in relation to CAM is generally limited and paradigmatic divergences between CAM and biomedicine can complicate patient-doctor discussions regarding what constitutes 'effectiveness', 'evidence' and 'risk' (Broom and Tovey 2007b).	en_US
dc.publisher	Routledge	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Handbook of the Sociology of Medical Education	en_US
dc.title	The status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in biomedical education: towards a critical engagement	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	Oxon	en_US
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
utslib.citation.edition	1st	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.edition	1st	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Oxon	en_US

Abstract:

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become increasingly prominent over the last three decades with more individuals using CAM in combination with, or as an alternative to, biomedical treatments. In addition to this resurgence in consumer interest in CAM modalities, health-insurance companies in the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand now fund selected CAM therapies such as chiropractic, osteopathy, acupuncture, homoeopathy and healing-touch therapy for certain medical conditions (Cassileth 1999). While there is still only limited and sporadic provision of CAM in mainstream western medical contexts, consumer interest, health-insurance rebates and political impetus have provided some degree of momentum toward the development of 'integrative' approaches to patient care. Progress has been slow in terms of actual mainstream integration of CAM practices, yet doctors are increasingly faced with patients wanting to discuss CAM-related issues. In areas such as cancer care or the treatment of other chronic illness, CAM use is traditionally high (Thome et at. 2002) and discussions about non-biomedical options are frequent and are valued by patients (Tovey and Broom 2007). However, the skill and knowledge base of practising clinicians in relation to CAM is generally limited and paradigmatic divergences between CAM and biomedicine can complicate patient-doctor discussions regarding what constitutes 'effectiveness', 'evidence' and 'risk' (Broom and Tovey 2007b).

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/14299