Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Both conventional health care providers and complementary therapists treat cancer patients. To provide effective treatment, both types of providers should to be familiar with their own as well as alternative types of treatment. Our aim was to compare how conventional health care providers (oncology doctors, oncology nurses, family physicians) and complementary therapists (acupuncturists, reflexologists, massage therapists) seek information about conventional and complementary cancer treatments. Method This analysis was conducted on the basis of feedback from 466 participants. We used self-administered questionnaires in a cross-sectional study. Results The majority of the medical doctors (96%) searched for evidence-based information regarding conventional cancer treatments. They gathered this information mostly from guidelines, which is considered best practice and is expected from Norwegian health personnel. Eighty-one percent of the nurses gather this information from evidence based resources such as UpToDate. Colleagues were asked for information by 58% of the medical doctors and 64% of the nurses. Moreover, 50% of the medical doctors and 57% of the nurses searched for evidence-based information about complementary cancer modalities. The acupuncturists gathered evidence-based information for both conventional (79%) and complementary (77%) modalities, followed by the reflexologists (54 and 54%, respectively) and massage therapists (54 and 52%, respectively). Nearly half of the acupuncturist (49%) asked a colleague for information. Conclusion To provide safe cancer care, it is important that advice about complementary modalities is based on current and evidence-based evaluations. The majority of the medical doctors and nurses in this study sought information according to evidence-based medicine regarding conventional cancer treatments, and about half of them gathered evidence-based information about complementary cancer modalities. This was also true for the complementary therapists as they gathered information about complementary and conventional treatments from evidence-based evaluations. This demonstrates that since the term evidence-based medicine was first introduced in 1991, the approach has grown extensively and both conventional and complementary providers use this approach to seek information.

Background Many complementary therapies offer benefits for patients with cancer. Others may be risky for patients due to negative interactions with conventional treatment and adverse effects. Therefore, cancer patients need guidance from health care providers to assess complementary modalities appropriately to receive benefits and avoid harm. Method In a self-administered questionnaire-based cross-sectional study, we compared knowledge and attitudes of health care providers with no training in complementary modalities to that of health care providers with training in complementary modalities about the risks for patients who combine complementary modalities with conventional treatment in cancer care. The analysis was based on responses from 466 participants. Results The attitudes and knowledge about direct risk followed provider specialty. Ninety-four percent of the medical doctors, 93% of the nurses, and 87% of the providers with dual training, but 70% of the complementary therapists, believed that complementary modalities can cause adverse effects (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors and nurses believed that it is risky to combine complementary and conventional cancer treatments (78% and 93%, respectively), compared to 58% of the providers with dual training and 43% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). Eighty-nine percent of the medical doctors and nurses believed that complementary modalities should be subjected to more scientific testing before being accepted by conventional health care providers, in contrast to 56% of the dually trained and 57% of the complementary therapists (p < 0.001). The majority of the medical doctors (61%) and nurses (55%) would have neither discouraged nor encouraged the use of complementary modalities if patients asked them for advice. Moreover, less than 1% of the complementary therapists would have discouraged the use of conventional cancer treatments. The study participants believed that the most important factor to recommend a complementary cancer modality to patients is evidence for safety. Conclusion The health care providers in this study believed that complementary modalities are associated with direct risk and can cause adverse effects, and that it is risky to combine conventional and complementary treatments due to potential harmful interactions.

While we may be comfortable with an allopathic approach to male infertility, we are also responsible for knowledge about lifestyle modifications and holistic, complementary, and alternative therapies that are used by many of our patients. This paper provides an evidence-based review separating fact from fiction for several of these therapies. There is sufficient literature to support weight reduction by diet and exercise, smoking cessation, and alcohol moderation. Supplements that have demonstrated positive effects on male fertility on small randomized controlled trial （RCT） include aescin, coenzyme Qlo, glutathione, Korean red ginseng, L-carnitine, nigella sativa, omega-3, selenium, a combination of zinc and folate, and the Menevit antioxidant. There is no support for the use of Vitamin C, Vitamin E, or saffron. The data for Chinese herbal medications, acupuncture, mind-body practice, scrotal cooling, and faith-based healing are sparse or inconclusive.

Despite the recent upsurge in interest in alternative medicine and unorthodox healers, Illness and Healing Alternatives in Western Europe is the first book to focus closely on the relationship between belief, culture, and healing in the past. In essays on France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and England, from the sixteenth century to the present day, the authors draw on a broad range of material, from studies of demonologists and reports of asylum doctors, to church archives and oral evidence.

Doc number: 162 Abstract Background: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is frequently used for pain conditions. While systematic reviews on MBSR for chronic pain have been conducted, there are no reviews for specific pain conditions. Therefore a systematic review of the effectiveness of MBSR in low back pain was performed. Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CAMBASE, and PsycInfo were screened through November 2011. The search strategy combined keywords for MBSR with keywords for low back pain. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MBSR to control conditions in patients with low back pain were included. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Clinical importance of group differences was assessed for the main outcome measures pain intensity and back-specific disability. Results: Three RCTs with a total of 117 chronic low back pain patients were included. One RCT on failed back surgery syndrome reported significant and clinically important short-term improvements in pain intensity and disability for MBSR compared to no treatment. Two RCTs on older adults (age ≥ 65 years) with chronic specific or non-specific low back pain reported no short-term or long-term improvements in pain or disability for MBSR compared to no treatment or health education. Two RCTs reported larger short-term improvements of pain acceptance for MBSR compared to no treatment. Conclusion: This review found inconclusive evidence of effectiveness of MBSR in improving pain intensity or disability in chronic low back pain patients. However, there is limited evidence that MBSR can improve pain acceptance. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes, adequate control interventions, and longer follow-ups are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

To summarize and critically evaluate the evidence available from clinical trials (CTs) of qigong for patients with type 2 diabetes. We have searched the literature using 15 databases from their respective inceptions through March 2009 without language restrictions. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. Nine CTs, which included three randomized clinical trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT) and five uncontrolled observational studies (UOSs), met our inclusion criteria. Three RCTs compared qigong plus usual care (including drug therapy) with usual care alone. The quality of these RCTs was poor. Their results suggested favorable effects of qigong on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), 2 h plasma glucose (2hPG), insulin sensitivity, and blood viscosity. One CCT compared qigong with no treatment and failed to show favorable effects of qigong on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2hPG, HbA1c and insulin sensitivity. All UOSs reported beneficial effects of qigong on FPG or 2hPG. Currently there are few rigorous trials testing the effectiveness of qigong for type 2 diabetes. The studies that are available are of low methodological quality. Collectively this evidence is insufficient to suggest that qigong is an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes. Rigorously designed trials are warranted to answer the many questions that remain open.

Explores Americans' increasing attraction to alternative medicine by looking at two alternative health networks, one New Age, the other conservative Christian. Despite having one of the most advanced systems of medicine in the world, American consumers are increasingly turning to alternative medicine. Through a study of two alternative health networks, one “New Age” and the other conservative Christian, A Diagnosis for Our Times examines the health regimes followed by clients of alternative practitioners, the way people find meaning in non-Western and pre-modern health traditions, and the relationship between alternative health and other movements for change. In sharp contrast with other work on this subject, this book characterizes alternative health as a social movement and a “cultural laboratory” where people discover new values and new ways of living that may have larger implications. The authors discover surprising commonalities between the cultural left and the religious right when it comes to healthcare, and they evaluate the potential of alternative health to contribute to a new healthcare paradigm.

Complementary therapies are becoming increasingly popular with patients. Specialized clinics can offer complementary medicine to patients in the German healthcare system, taking into account specific structural requirements. However, little is known about the patients treated in these hospitals. For this purpose, 12,457 hospital stays were analysed from 2007 to 2024 in an approved acute care hospital to obtain more information about the illnesses, comorbidities, length of stay in hospital, age, and chronicity of the patients. Approximately half of the hospital stays examined showed pain-related disorders (49.3%), followed by common internal medical conditions (11.7%) and psychological diagnoses (10.3%). Women showed on mean 14 secondary diagnosis (median 9.0, IQR 6.0), male patients 9.1 (median 9.0, IQR 6.0). 5562 stays showed five or more comorbidities. Considering all hospital stays, the female gender predominated (N = 9680, 77.7%, 95% CI 77.0–78.4% vs. male N = 2777, 22,3%, 95% CI 21.6–23.0%). The mean age of female patients was 64.6 (median 65.0, IQR25.0) of male patients 64.8 (median 66.0, IQR 24.0). The mean length of stay was 12.2 days (median 14, IQR 7.0). A large number of patients have chronic conditions, with pronounced pain and psychological impairments. A complementary medicine treatment concept focuses on the treatment of chronically ill patients with multiple diseases.