National Center For Complementary And Alternative Medicine Research Articles

Perceived Benefits of Magdalena Energy Healing Sessions: An Exploratory Study of Clients' Perspectives.

Energy healing techniques are associated with many physical and mental benefits. A qualitative study was conducted to understand clients' experiences of a new energy healing modality called Magdalena Energy Healing. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted after clients experienced 60 min Magdalena energy healing session(s). Twenty-five adults participated in the study. All participants received Magdalena energy healing from a certified, trained practitioner. Thematic analysis was conducted to determine clients' perceived benefits of the Magdalena energy healing session(s). Four themes emerged from the data: Physical, Mental, Social, and Spiritual Benefits. Physical health benefits included relief from a variety of medical symptoms, improved sleep quality, and physical body awareness. Mental Health benefits included relaxation and peace, decision-making clarity, relief of mental health symptoms, and an increased ability to cope with life. Social Benefits included improved attitudes in relationships. Spiritual Benefits included optimism, gratitude, self-acceptance, and increased spiritual connection. Participants' perceptions are that Magdalena energy healing sessions offer peace, symptom relief, and gratitude. Magdalena energy healing can address priorities of The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Sessions can be seamlessly integrated into traditional medical care as a useful complementary/integrative healing option to improve physical, mental, and/or spiritual wellbeing across a variety of diseases.

A 10 Year Analysis of Gender Distribution in National Institutes of Health Funding for Non-Malignant Hematology

Introduction: Historically, there has been an underrepresentation of women in the field of hematology. Consequently, this makes them less likely to receive academic research grants. Here, we present a ten year retrospective analysis of the Research Project Grants (R01) awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through the fiscal years of 2012-2022. The grants were categorized by various NIH agencies. This temporal analysis examines gender disparities under the field of non-malignant hematology research. Methods:Data was extracted for the fiscal years 2012-2022 focusing exclusively on R01 grants awarded and categorized by the various NIH agencies. Data was leveraged using the NIH RePORTER tool, Tidyverse, and janitor packages in R. The dataset incorporated key grant parameters such as grant ID, agency code, activity code, abstract text, project title, fiscal year, activity status, award amount, organization, and principal investigator's(PI) name. In order to distinguish a PI's gender, PI's first names were processed using the gender package in R, which provided a gender-wise distribution of recipients. For statistical analyses, proportions of females with accepted R01 grants were compared between 2012 to 2022; this proportion analysis was also done among each NIH agency. Further, linear regression and associated statistical tests were used to identify whether there was significant change in grants received by either gender over this time period. Results: A total of 250,031 R01 grants were awarded by the NIH during the fiscal years of 2012 to 2022. Females (n=82,152: 32.9% (95% CI 0.41-0.43) received fewer grants than males (n=167,879: 67.1%, (95% CI 0.50-0.55). Across 2012 to 2022, there was no significant change in R01 grants awarded among men (16,221 to 15,601, p-value= 0.52). In contrast, there was a significant difference for females in the R01 grants awarded across 2012 to 2022 (6,865 to 9,339, p-value <0.001). In 2012, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) awarded less than 25% of the total grants to females. By 2022, of all the agencies, the NBIB remained the agency with the most extensive gender gap with females being awarded only 23% of grants. In contrast, the National Institute of Minority Health and Disparities (NIMHD) and the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) were the only agencies in 2012 to award more grants to females with approximately 52% and 74% of grants respectively. In 2022, the NINR and NIHMD continued to show more grants awarded to females versus males. In addition to those agencies, by 2022, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development(NICHD) and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) joined the NINR and NIHMD in awarding more than 50% of grants awarded to females that year. Conclusion: This analysis highlights continued gender disparity as only 33% of total R01 NIH grants were awarded to females during the fiscal years 2012-2022 in non-malignant hematologic research. Although, it is noted that while some agencies have made strides towards gender parity, others continue to have a significant gap. While this remains a systemic and multifaceted issue, identifying these areas of gender disparity will enable targeted efforts to bridge this gap and advance gender equality.

Integrated multicomponent interventions to support healthy aging of the whole person.

Healthy aging is an integrated "whole person" process that involves an individual's biology, behavior, and social/physical environment. With the recent development of antiaging drugs, careful consideration of the respective roles of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches to both health and aging is in order. Recent advances in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms of aging are providing new measures that can be used as clinical outcomes in studying the impact of antiaging interventions in humans. This paper outlines the strategic interest of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) in supporting the development, testing, and implementation of effective, scalable, and integrated multicomponent interventions to support healthy aging of the whole person.

Affective Science Research: Perspectives and Priorities from the National Institutes of Health.

Affective science is a broad and burgeoning field, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) support research on a similarly broad range of topics. Across NIH, funding is available for basic, translational, and intervention research, including research in non-human animals, healthy populations, and those with or at risk for disease. Multiple NIH Institutes and Centers have specific programs devoted to topics within the affective science umbrella. Here, we introduce the funding priorities of these six: the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). We then discuss overlapping themes and offer a perspective on promising research directions.

Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in inflammatory bowel disease guidelines: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II

BackgroundMany patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for disease management. There is, however, a communication gap between patients and healthcare professionals regarding CAM use, where patients are hesitant to disclose CAM use to providers. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in IBD clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched from 2011 to 2022 to find CPGs for the treatment and/or management of IBD. The Guidelines International Network (GIN) and National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) websites were also searched. Eligible CPGs were assessed using the AGREE II instrument.ResultsNineteen CPGs made CAM recommendations for IBD and were included in this review. Average scaled domain percentages of CPGs were as follows (overall CPG, CAM section): scope and purpose (91.5%, 91.5%), clarity of presentation (90.3%, 64.0%), editorial independence (57.0%, 57.0%), stakeholder involvement (56.7%, 27.8%), rigour of development (54.7%, 45.9%), and applicability (14.6%, 2.1%).ConclusionsThe majority of CPGs with CAM recommendations were of low quality and their CAM sections scored substantially lower relative to other therapies in the overall CPG. In future updates, CPGs with low scaled-domain percentages could be improved in accordance with AGREE II and other guideline development resources. Further research investigating how CAM therapies can best be incorporated into IBD CPGs is warranted.

Focusing on Whole-Person Health: A Conversation Between Hélène Langevin and Ramsey Badawi.

![Figure][1]</img> Hélène Langevin, MD Ramsey Badawi, from the University of California Davis, talked with Hélène Langevin, director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD), about her career-long

The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Health Care

It's kind of mysterious how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is being used more and more in developed, "established" Western countries. There hasn't been much study or good understanding about it. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) defines "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) as a collection of various medical and health systems, procedures, and objects that are not currently regarded as corresponding to traditional medicine. Over the past 15 years or so, CAM use has grown significantly, and it is without a dispute significant from a medical, economic, and sociological perspective. Even though there are literally hundreds of therapies that fall under the broad definition of CAM, only about 15-20 have definitive proof of their efficacy and safety to be taken seriously (Tiran, 2001). The NCCAM divides complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into five primary categories: whole medical systems, mind-body healthcare, physiologically based, manipulative and body-based therapies, and energy fields [1].&#x0D; CAM is frequently used to supplement conventional treatment. Back issues, melancholy, sleeplessness, intense headaches or migraines, stomach or intestinal diseases, and back problems were the most frequent symptoms linked with CAM, according to a review of the worldwide CAM literature by Frass et al. [2]. A few earlier studies looked into the use of CAM for particular diseases or health issues, like cancer and multiple sclerosis.&#x0D;  &#x0D; According to Menniti-Ippolito et al., herbal medicine was more frequently used to enhance life expectancy while acupuncture and manipulative treatments were mainly used to treat pain in Italy. Homeopathy, in comparison, was not linked to any particular health issues [3]. Other common reasons people turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are dissatisfaction with biomedicine, frustration with the doctor-patient relationship, relaxation, enhancements in subjective wellbeing, preventative medicine, a preference for natural care over biomedical medicine, and an eagerness for more individualized and holistic care.&#x0D; People in Pakistan who believe in quacks, pastors, hakeems, homoeopaths, or other psychic healers have used alternative treatments. For issues like infertility, seizures, psychosomatic issues, melancholy, and many other illnesses, these are the first line of defense. The proximity, reasonable cost, accessibility, family obligation, and the positive perception of the community are the primary justifications for visiting a CAM healer. Pakistan has a long history of using medicinal herbs to cure a variety of illnesses. The people's health-seeking behavior, particularly in emerging nations, necessitates integrating all CAM healers into society by giving them access to appropriate training, tools, and referral support.

NCCIH Priorities for Natural Products Research.

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is the lead agency within the U. S. federal government for complementary and integrative health research, which includes natural products. Although NCCIH is one of the smaller components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NCCIH funds a disproportionately high percentage of natural products research at NIH. This stems from NCCIH being the only NIH grant issuing component that includes natural products as an explicit part of its mission. This perspective provides an overview of the NCCIH mission and summarizes NCCIH funding priorities for natural products research across basic and mechanistic as well as clinical sectors. These priorities are guided by the recently released NCCIH strategic plan. A primary element of this new plan is a focus on whole person health instead of the frequent focus on the treatment of diseases. The NCCIH focus on whole person health includes how natural products and multicomponent therapeutic approaches, which often include natural products, can help move individuals towards health restoration and promotion.

Reiki method in physical therapy and rehabilitation (researchs' review)

Bioenergy therapy method Reiki, existing since 1922, is widespread in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, and the former Soviet Union. According to the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), Reiki belongs to the methods of com­plementary and alternative medicine, but is increasingly used as a standard procedure in hospitals, hospices and rehabilitation centers. Most of the published results of Reiki efficacy studies relate to pain relief, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. The effects of Reiki for reducing the effects of strokes, epilepsy, normalization of the nervous, immune and endocrine systems in the rehabilitation and overcoming the effects of distress are studied. Studies concern humans, animals, and bacterial cultures. Special attention should be paid to recent studies conducted with a large number of patients, design and methods of evaluation of results that meet the standards of modern traditional evidence-based medicine. To determine promising areas for further research, PubMed information on the proven effects of Reiki on chronic and acute pain, stress-induced states, motor and sensitivity functions, immunity, metabolic and hormonal processes, inflammation, edema, microcirculation in the perspective of physical therapy and rehabilitation. Among the studies of the last twenty years are studies with small samples of patients and animals, which contain interesting hypotheses about the possible mechanisms of action of Reiki. In particular, this is a study by Dyer N.L. et al. (2019). The high interest of researchers in Reiki therapy and good acceptance of the method by many patients were noted. Researchers constantly note that the study of the effectiveness of Reiki should be continued, and determine what part of the effect belongs to the placebo. Other aspects of impact require standardization of methods, randomization, blinding, and strict control of results. Keywords: Reiki, physical therapy, rehabilitation, clinical effects, evidence-based medicine.

Making Connections to Improve Health Outcomes.

This issue of Global Advances in Health and Medicine sends a vital message about the importance of whole person health. Whole person health rests on the idea that our health involves multiple interconnected factors across physiological systems, as well as biological, behavioral, social, and environmental domains. The urgency of better understanding whole person health is highlighted by the current global health crisis. Yet, biomedical research often favors a reductionist approach. The current emphasis on diseases or single organ systems can fall short when it comes to addressing the interconnected factors that contribute to worse health outcomes. This, coupled with a fragmented health care delivery system, contributes to the challenges that patients face every day in becoming healthier. As part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, our role at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is to foster research in this field. NCCIH’s twenty years of research has built a body of knowledge that has established a clear path forward for exploring whole person health in the coming years. Within the framework of our strategic plan, NCCIH is working to build research methods for studying whole person health and explore how this understanding of health can transform the way complementary and integrative health is perceived and implemented within the wider health care delivery system.The collection of papers highlighted in this month’s issue of Global Advances in Health and Medicine sends an important and encouraging signal about the efforts being made to deliver health care in a way that recognizes the importance of whole person health. Each of these studies provides new insights on how stakeholders might approach transforming the delivery of health care, integrating approaches that can improve health outcomes for people.

Implementation Science Methodologies for Complementary and Integrative Health Research.

Published results of efficacy and effectiveness studies on complementary health approaches should lead to widespread uptake of evidence-based practices, but too often, the scientific pathway ends prematurely, before the best ways to improve adoption, implementation, and sustainability can be determined. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) supports the full continuum of the biomedical research pipeline, whereby a complementary health intervention moves from basic and mechanistic research through efficacy trials and through dissemination and implementation. Implementation science has traditionally been thought of as something that only happens after efficacy and effectiveness have been demonstrated, but it can be prudent to evaluate implementation measures earlier in the process. Implementation science assesses more than just barriers and facilitators; it evaluates specific implementation strategies and characterizes the extent that the intervention is modified within the context of the implementation strategy and health care delivery setting. The best choices for implementation science in complementary health interventions depend on the research questions. Implementation science that tests strategies to address implementation at multiple ecologic levels is a high priority to NCCIH.

Placebo Effects in Acupuncture.

This article is a summary of a talk presented in February 2019 at a conference on acupuncture sponsored by the National Institutes of Cancer (NCI) and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) at the National of Institutes of Health (NIH). The article touches on the history of placebos in biomedicine and its absence in traditional East Asian Medicine. It then examines some of the predicaments of evaluating acupuncture's efficacy in relationship to placebo controls. Although acupuncture in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generally demonstrate equivalence or even superiority to medical interventions or other nonpharmacologic therapies, acupuncture's ability to show superiority to placebo controls has been inconclusive, contradictory and, at best, modest. This article highlights the efforts of the German health insurance funds to evaluate acupuncture. Using a large meta-analysis, the article summaries acupuncture's effectiveness and efficacy. Subsequently, RCTs and meta-analyses testing the hypothesis that sham acupuncture, and other device placebos, have augmented placebo responses are described. It seems that acupuncture, and devices in general, have enhanced placebo responses. These findings may be relevant to designing and evaluating placebo-control acupuncture RCTs. Research into placebo acupuncture may also be helpful for other conditions where detection of intervention-placebo differences can be problematic. Further research is warranted.

Introduction to the special issue: Complementary medicine and integrative health approaches to trauma therapy and recovery.

The popularity of complementary and integrative health (also complementary integrated health; CIH) approaches has significantly increased in recent years. According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health, about 1 in 3 adults and 1 in 9 children used CIH approaches to healing. Some reports estimate that the use of CIH approaches will continue to increase (Clarke et al., 2015) as these therapies are cost effective and also due to the difficulties in finding trained mental health professionals (Simon et al., 2020). For the purpose of this special issue, we use the NCCIH's definition of CIH as "a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine" (Barnes et al., 2004, p. v). However, the integration of these therapies into the health system has not followed the same pattern despite the fact that patients report the need to discuss CIH therapies with their doctors or are actually using them (de Jonge et al., 2018; Jou & Johnson, 2016; Stapleton et al., 2015). This inability to keep up with the demand or patients' preference is possibly due to providers' lack of understanding and/or knowledge of these therapies, as well as scientific skepticism (Ali & Katz, 2015; Fletcher et al., 2017). Using data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, Jou & Johnson (2016) identified patterns of CIH use in the United States and reasons for patients' nondisclosure of the use of these therapies. Patients' fear of disclosure due to perceived skepticism or disapproval from their provider was frequently attributed as a cause of patients' nondisclosures to providers about the use of these therapies (Eisenberg et al., 2001; Jou & Johnson, 2016; Thomson et al., 2012). The arrival of patient-centered care models is beginning to shift the ways we understand the patient's role in treatment engagement. Patient-centered approaches often emphasize the use of preventative and holistic wellness models that go beyond the use of evidence-based treatments. This approach also seeks to be culturally responsive, which is a key factor in addressing health disparities in the United States (American Psychological Association [APA], 2019). The Institute of Medicine, in its report on CIH therapies, highlighted the importance of engaging patients in their own care, including having a decision about therapeutic options (Bondurant et al., 2005). Likewise, the Race and Ethnicity Guidelines in Psychology (APA, 2019) recommend psychologists engage the patient's cultural beliefs, or what Kleinman called the "explanatory belief model" (Kleinman, 1978)- for example, by "aim[ing] to understand and encourage indigenous/ ethnocultural sources of healing within professional practice" (APA, 2019, p. 24). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Mindfulness-Based Intervention Development for Children and Adolescents.

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have become an increasingly widespread treatment for psychiatric and medical disorders in children and adolescents. However, enthusiasm for mindfulness in pediatric populations may outpace the evidence. To address this gap, we integrate the “Framework for Developing and Testing Mind and Body Interventions” issued by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) with the National Institute of Health (NIH) “Stage Model of Intervention Development,” and offer specific recommendations based on the stage model of MBI development to guide the design, evaluation, implementation, and dissemination of MBIs in young persons. As such, we offer both a theoretical framework and practical guidance to child and adolescent clinicians and researchers seeking to develop and/or test evidence-based MBIs. We believe that this paper has great potential for scientific and public health benefit, given the rapidly increasing use of mindfulness as a clinical intervention.

Call for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health.

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineVol. 26, No. 3 Call for PapersFree AccessCall for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative HealthPublished Online:11 Mar 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2019.29080.cfp3AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Deadline for Manuscript Submission: May 31, 2020Guest Editors: A. Rani Elwy, PhD, Jeffrey Dusek, PhD, and Stephanie L. Taylor, PhD, MPHA. Rani Elwy, PhDAssociate Professor, and Director, Implementation Science Core Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Alpert Medical School of Brown University; and VA Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation ResearchJeffrey Dusek, PhDDirector of Research, University Hospitals Connor Integrative Health Network Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve UniversityStephanie L. Taylor, PhD, MPHDirector, QUERI Complementary and Integrative Health Evaluation Center Veteran's Administration; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLAThanks to generous grants from the George Family Foundation and the Institute for Integrative Health, all articles published in this issue will be open access.Philanthropic PartnersSpecial Issue Advisory TeamLinda E. Carlson, PhD, RPsychEnbridge Research Chair in Psychosocial OncologyProfessor, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryDave Clark, DrPHProgram Director, Extramural Research, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, NIHLynn DeBar, PhD, MPH [INVITED]Senior Investigator, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research InstituteChristine Goertz, DC, PhDProfessor, Duke University Medical SchoolChair, Board of Governors, Patient-CentersOutcomes Research InstitutePatricia Herman, ND, PhD, MSSenior Behavioral and Social ScientistRAND CorporationDonald Douglas McGeary, MDAssociate Professor, PsychiatryUniversity of Texas Health SciencesDan Rhon, PT, DPT, DSc, OCS, FAAOMPTResearch Director, Bellin CollegeAmie Steel, ND, PhDComplementary and Alternative MedicineUniversity of Technology, SydneyClaudia Witt, MD, MBAVice Dean for Interprofessionalism, University of Zurich; Professor and Chair, Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine; University Hospital Zurich and University Zurich, SwitzerlandStephen Zeliadt, PhD, MPHResearch Professor Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington; Veteran's Administration Health Services Research and DevelopmentSuzanna Zick, ND, MPHResearch Associate ProfessorCo-director, Integrative Family MedicineUniversity of MichiganMedical SchoolThe importance of real-world research to help the public, academics, decision makers and other stakeholders understand the optimal uses of complementary and integrative health practices and practitioners has never been as important as it is today. A crisis in treatment of people with chronic pain and high levels of public use drives interest in non-pharmacologic approaches to pain and symptom management. Putting patients at the center of research and dissemination can drive practical models. Meantime, the WHO's Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine initiative urges member nations to determine how these approaches can be useful in meeting the WHO goal of universal health care. In fact, this priority is enshrined in the mandate that established the USA's National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): “ … study the integration of alternative treatment, diagnostic and prevention systems, modalities, and disciplines with the practice of conventional medicine as a complement to such medicine and into health care delivery systems.” Decision makers need to know what interventions are effective and how to disseminate and sustainably implement evidence-based integrative health practices.In October 2020, JACM: Paradigm, Practice and Policy Advancing Integrative Health (The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine) will publish a Special Issue on Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health. The goal of the Special Issue is to provide an enduring volume that will both aggregate the best of such research while also educating and prompting the field toward more robust engagement with implementation science and other forms of research that can guide new care models.Guiding the special issue are guest editors Rani Elwy, PhD, Jeffery Dusek, PhD and Stephanie L. Taylor, PhD. Drs. Elwy and Taylor are implementation scientists who are leaders in the foundational efforts of the US Veteran's Administration to transform that agency into a “whole health” model that appropriately partners with integrative practices and practitioners. As such, Elwy and Taylor are in the thick of one the globe's most intentional efforts to implement new forms of integrative care. Dusek's background includes a decade and a half directing research dedicated to integrative strategies inside private not for profit health systems. Currently at the University Hospitals Connor Integrative Health Network, Dusek also continues to lead a practice-based research network of integrative academic health centers that are collaborating in similar, practical objectives.Timeliness with the NCCIH: JACM interest in developing this Special Issue coincides with activity at the NIH NCCIH relative to implementation science. We are pleased and honored to have NCCIH implementation science leader Dave Clark, DrPH on the Special Issue Advisory Team.We invite your submissions! We are seeking original research and reviews in these areas: effectiveness research on integrative practices, dissemination and implementation articles, cost and business models issues, and education research. If you have ideas that you believe would be solid additions but are not explicitly called out here, please send us a query.Manuscript submission due date: May 31, 2020. When submitting your paper, please select the “Special Issue Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health” manuscript category to ensure it is considered for this special issue. Original manuscripts should be no longer than 3,000 words, and Systematic Reviews should be no longer than 4,500 words. Title, abstract, acknowledgments, disclosures, references, and figure/table legends do not count toward the word limit.Additional feature: As an additional feature in this JACM Special Issue, we are accepting submissions of 500-word commentaries to reflect on next steps for effectiveness, implementation and dissemination: controversies; unusual experiences (not case reports); models of care; educational models; etc. Those submitting need not have also submitted original research. We will select a set from those submitted that will be published together to capture the challenges and opportunities for this moment for the field.If you have questions in this area, or ideas for other submissions that might strengthen the value of this special issue, please feel free to query us via JACM Editor-in-Chief John Weeks at jweeks.jacm@gmail.com.Submit your paper for peer review online:http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jaltcompmedFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 26Issue 3Mar 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Call for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health.The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.Mar 2020.163-165.http://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2019.29080.cfp3Published in Volume: 26 Issue 3: March 11, 2020PDF download

Self-Hypnosis for Sleep Disturbances in Menopausal Women.

Poor sleep is one of the most frequent health concerns among menopausal women. All stages of sleep can be impacted by the menopause transition. Negative outcomes of poor sleep are multidimensional and include poor physical, psychological, cognition, and social outcomes. Hypnosis is a nonpharmacological treatment for poor sleep and hot flashes in menopausal women. The goal of hypnosis is to educate and train subjects to perform self-hypnosis to alleviate the underlying symptom. The use of hypnosis as a treatment for poor sleep has shown benefits for both acute and chronic insomnia. Initial findings from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) Hypnosis Intervention for Sleep in Menopause: Examination of Optimal Dose and Method of Delivery randomized control trial of 90 women were presented. Results showed that program and treatment satisfaction were high in all groups, adherence to daily practice met or exceeded adherence benchmarks. There were significant reduction of poor sleep quality in all groups with a significant increase in minutes slept in all groups. The majority of women also showed clinical improvements of duration. There were clinically meaningful improvements in reducing the perception of poor sleep quality in 50%-77% of women across time. Overall, the use of self-hypnosis as a treatment program for sleep problems related to menopause was acceptable for women. Data further support that hypnosis is a promising technique to improve sleep in menopausal women with sleep and hot flashes. Further research is ongoing on self-hypnosis delivery and implementation into wider populations of women using clear definition and control groups.

Acupuncture for glaucoma.

Glaucoma is a multi-factorial optic neuropathy characterized by an acquired loss of retinal ganglion cells at levels beyond normal age-related loss and corresponding atrophy of the optic nerve. Although many treatments are available to manage glaucoma, patients may seek complementary or alternative medicine approaches such as acupuncture to supplement their regular treatment. The underlying plausibility of acupuncture is that disorders related to the flow of Chi (traditional Chinese concept of vital force or energy) can be managed by stimulating relevant points on the body surface. To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in patients with glaucoma. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2018, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED); PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS); ZETOC; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) website. We did not use any language or date restrictions in the search for trials. We last searched electronic databases on November 16, 2018, with the exception of NCCAM, which we last searched on July 14, 2010, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), which we last searched on January 8, 2013. We handsearched Chinese medical journals at Peking Union Medical College Library in April 2007. We searched the Chinese Acupuncture Trials Register, the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), the Chinese Biological Database (CBM), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). We last searched Chinese electronic databases on November 19, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one arm involved acupuncture treatment. Two review authors independently screened results, then extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for eligible trials. We included three completed trials and one ongoing trial in the 2019 update of this review. The three completed trials, conducted in Taiwan and the United States, included participants with glaucoma or intraocular hypertension. The interventions investigated varied across trials. One trial compared auricular acupressure－a non-standard acupuncture technique－with the sham procedure in 33 patients. Another trial compared transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) with a sham procedure in 82 patients. The third trial compared 12 sessions of acupuncture on eye-points versus on non-eye-points in 22 patients. All three trials were rated at high risk of bias for at least one domain. The certainty of evidence across all outcomes was very low due to high risk of bias in at least one contributing study; substantial clinical heterogeneity and methodological heterogeneity; and imprecision of results. One trial reported change in the visual field from baseline without any between-group comparison. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret. All three trials reported data for estimation of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP). However, time points of IOP measurement varied. For the trial comparing acupressure to a sham procedure, the difference in IOP reduction (measured in mm Hg) is estimated to be -3.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] -7.11 to -0.29) for the right eye and -4.90 (95% CI -8.08 to -1.72) for the left eye at four weeks, and -1.30 mm Hg (95% CI -4.78 to 2.18) for the right eye and -2.30 mm Hg (95% CI -5.73 to 1.13) for the left eye at eight weeks. For the trial comparing TENS to sham treatment, the difference reduction is estimated to be -2.81 (95% CI -3.8 to -1.84) for the right eye and -2.58 (95% CI -3.36 to -1.80) for the left eye immediately after treatment, -2.93 (95% CI -3.72 to -2.13) for the right eye and -3.56 (95% CI -4.35 to 2.78) for the left eye 30 minutes after treatment, and finally -3.61 (95% CI -4.47 to -2.75) for the right eye and -3.61 (95% -4.47 to -2.74) for the left eye. For the trial that compared acupuncture on eye-points versus non-eye-points, 11 out of 22 (50%) participants did not complete the treatment. One trial reported data for estimation of visual acuity. When acupressure is compared to sham treatment, the difference in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA, measured in logMAR) is estimated to be -0.01 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.22) for the right eye and -0.04 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.19) for the left eye at four months, and -0.03 logMAR (95% CI -0.27 to 0.21) for the right eye and -0.16 logMAR (95% CI -0.43 to 0.11) for the left eye at eight months. The difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) is estimated to be 0.10 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.26) for the right eye and 0 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.14) for the left eye at four months, and -0.04 logMAR (95% CI -0.09 to 0.17) for the right eye and -0.04 logMAR (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10) for the left eye at eight months. One trial reported progression of optic disc damage or nerve fiber layer loss without any between-group comparison. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret. One trial reported adverse events in two patients (out of 22) who experienced needle sensitivity. However, the study did not report between-group comparisons. Because of the quantity of missing data (50%), we did not calculate a between-group comparison, as the quantitative results are difficult to interpret. At this time, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions from available data to support the use of acupuncture for treatment of patients with glaucoma. Because of ethical considerations, RCTs comparing acupuncture alone with standard glaucoma treatment or placebo are unlikely to be justified in countries where the standard of care has already been established.

Call for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health.

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineVol. 26, No. 1 Call for PapersFree AccessCall for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative HealthDeadline for Manuscript Submission: May 31, 2020Guest Editors: A. Rani Elwy, Jeffrey Dusek, and Stephanie L. TaylorGuest Editors: A. Rani ElwySearch for more papers by this author, Jeffrey DusekSearch for more papers by this author, and Stephanie L. TaylorSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:20 Jan 2020https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2019.29080.cfpAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail A. Rani Elwy, PhDAssociate Professor, and Director, Implementation Science Core Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Alpert Medical School of Brown University; and VA Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation ResearchJeffrey Dusek, PhDDirector of Research, University Hospitals Connor Integrative Health Network Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Case Western Reserve UniversityStephanie L. Taylor, PhD, MPHDirector, QUERI Complementary and Integrative Health Evaluation Center Veteran's Administration; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLAThanks to generous grants from the George Family Foundation and the Institute for Integrative Health, all articles published in this issue will be open access.Philanthropic PartnersSpecial Issue Advisory TeamLinda E. Carlson, PhD, RPsychEnbridge Research Chair in Psychosocial OncologyProfessor, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryDave Clark, DrPHProgram Director, Extramural Research, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, NIHLynn DeBar, PhD, MPH [INVITED]Senior Investigator, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research InstituteChristine Goertz, DC, PhDProfessor, Duke University Medical SchoolChair, Board of Governors, Patient-CentersOutcomes Research InstitutePatricia Herman, ND, PhD, MSSenior Behavioral and Social ScientistRAND CorporationDonald Douglas McGeary, MDAssociate Professor, PsychiatryUniversity of Texas Health SciencesDan Rhon, PT, DPT, DSc, OCS, FAAOMPTResearch Director, Bellin CollegeAmie Steel, ND, PhDComplementary and Alternative MedicineUniversity of Technology, SydneyClaudia Witt, MD, MBAVice Dean for Interprofessionalism, University of Zurich; Professor and Chair, Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine; University Hospital Zurich and University Zurich, SwitzerlandStephen Zeliadt, PhD, MPHResearch Professor Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington; Veteran's Administration Health Services Research and DevelopmentSuzanna Zick, ND, MPHResearch Associate ProfessorCo-director, Integrative Family MedicineUniversity of MichiganMedical SchoolThe importance of real-world research to help the public, academics, decision makers and other stakeholders understand the optimal uses of complementary and integrative health practices and practitioners has never been as important as it is today. A crisis in treatment of people with chronic pain and high levels of public use drives interest in non-pharmacologic approaches to pain and symptom management. Putting patients at the center of research and dissemination can drive practical models. Meantime, the WHO's Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine initiative urges member nations to determine how these approaches can be useful in meeting the WHO goal of universal health care. In fact, this priority is enshrined in the mandate that established the USA's National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): “ … study the integration of alternative treatment, diagnostic and prevention systems, modalities, and disciplines with the practice of conventional medicine as a complement to such medicine and into health care delivery systems.” Decision makers need to know what interventions are effective and how to disseminate and sustainably implement evidence-based integrative health practices.In October 2020, JACM: Paradigm, Practice and Policy Advancing Integrative Health (The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine) will publish a Special Issue on Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health. The goal of the Special Issue is to provide an enduring volume that will both aggregate the best of such research while also educating and prompting the field toward more robust engagement with implementation science and other forms of research that can guide new care models.Guiding the special issue are guest editors Rani Elwy, PhD, Jeffery Dusek, PhD and Stephanie L. Taylor, PhD. Drs. Elwy and Taylor are implementation scientists who are leaders in the foundational efforts of the US Veteran's Administration to transform that agency into a “whole health” model that appropriately partners with integrative practices and practitioners. As such, Elwy and Taylor are in the thick of one the globe's most intentional efforts to implement new forms of integrative care. Dusek's background includes a decade and a half directing research dedicated to integrative strategies inside private not for profit health systems. Currently at the University Hospitals Connor Integrative Health Network, Dusek also continues to lead a practice-based research network of integrative academic health centers that are collaborating in similar, practical objectives.Timeliness with the NCCIH: JACM interest in developing this Special Issue coincides with activity at the NIH NCCIH relative to implementation science. We are pleased and honored to have NCCIH implementation science leader Dave Clark, DrPH on the Special Issue Advisory Team.We invite your submissions! We are seeking original research and reviews in these areas: effectiveness research on integrative practices, dissemination and implementation articles, cost and business models issues, and education research. If you have ideas that you believe would be solid additions but are not explicitly called out here, please send us a query.Manuscript submission due date: May 31, 2020. When submitting your paper, please select the “Special Issue Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health” manuscript category to ensure it is considered for this special issue. Original manuscripts should be no longer than 3,000 words, and Systematic Reviews should be no longer than 4,500 words. Title, abstract, acknowledgments, disclosures, references, and figure/table legends do not count toward the word limit.Additional feature: As an additional feature in this JACM Special Issue, we are accepting submissions of 500-word commentaries to reflect on next steps for effectiveness, implementation and dissemination: controversies; unusual experiences (not case reports); models of care; educational models; etc. Those submitting need not have also submitted original research. We will select a set from those submitted that will be published together to capture the challenges and opportunities for this moment for the field.If you have questions in this area, or ideas for other submissions that might strengthen the value of this special issue, please feel free to query us via JACM Editor-in-Chief John Weeks at jweeks.jacm@gmail.com.Submit your paper for peer review online:http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jaltcompmedFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 26Issue 1Jan 2020 InformationCopyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Guest Editors: A. Rani Elwy, Jeffrey Dusek, and Stephanie L. Taylor.Call for Special Issue Papers: Effectiveness, Implementation and Dissemination Research in Integrative Health.The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.Jan 2020.1-3.http://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2019.29080.cfpPublished in Volume: 26 Issue 1: January 20, 2020PDF download

Attitudes and practices of complementary and alternative medicine among patients attending primary care center in Saudi Arabia: A prospective cross-sectional study.

Introduction and objectives:Estimated complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage in Saudi Arabia is 70%. The Saudi Food and Drug Authority, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) regulates the license-based practices of various CAM modalities including procedures, herbs, and devices. As an aid to help primary care physicians for understanding CAM practices among general population, this study aimed to explore the prevalence of CAM along with its most common modality, and to understand attitude and practices among patients attending primary care center in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia).Methods:A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted among 403 literate patients aged more than 18 years, coming to the primary care center for regular check-up from 1st April 2019 to 1st April 2020 Saudi Arabia. Data was collected using self-administered questionnaire.Results:Around 44.5% participants had practiced one method of alternative medicine in their life. Majority of participants who attended primary care centers belonged to the age group of 18–39 years (71.1%). The most common used method of alternative medicine was honey healing. More than half of the study participants had heard about the CAM from their family and friends. Nearly 45.7% had stated that the CAM cannot be used without consulting a medical professional. Nearly 3/4th population used it for treating up to 3 ailments.Conclusion:Use of alternative medicine was found to be prevalent in Riyadh. Family and friends were recognized as gatekeepers for propagating information about CAM usage in the society. Primary healthcare physicians need to be trained on prevalent practices of CAM to understand the societal needs.

Translating Fundamental Science of Acupuncture into Clinical Practice

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) organized a 2-day workshop “Translating Fundamental Science of Acupuncture into Clinical Practice,” at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, from February 11-12, 2019. The workshop focused on 1) specific effect of the acupuncture intervention: neural mechanism and pathways, 2) non-specific effect of the acupuncture intervention, and 3) overcome the barriers of clinical research of acupuncture. Here we summarize the brief information on this workshop.