Page 10 - طب بديل مقصه_Neat

CAM therapies are patentable, and thus the financial payoff from research is
low, relative to pharmaceutical products. This limited funding and lack of
financial incentives has contributed to the lower quality and scarcity of CAM
research.
 Clinical studies in complementary care are often of questionable quality in
terms of hypothesis, design, statistical analysis, or conclusions; expectations of
―bottom line‖ answers about the value or merits of many CAM therapies is
unrealistic in a field that so recently gained the attention of mainstream
research institutions.
 Belief barriers: Conventional physicians have a number of misconceptions
and biases that prevent them from accepting alternative therapies. Many people
are more comfortable with traditional medical practice than with alternative
and complementary therapies.
 A clash of clinical “cultures”: the lack of a common conceptual framework

and corresponding clinical vocabulary can significantly impede integration by

making communication challenging among different healthcare cultures. For
example, the term ―chi‖ is meaningful in the practice of acupuncture but has no

direct functional counterpart in the vocabulary or belief system of western
medicine. Likewise, the phrase ―magnetic resonance spectroscopy‖ may mean

very little to a practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine.

Risks of CAM

1. Lack of standardization.

2. Lack of regulations and research that makes it evidence based practice.

3. Legal risks are greatest for the conventional practitioner attempting to
practice integrative care in the following circumstances:

o When patients are referred to a CAM provider without informed
consent or adequate education about the type of therapy provided;

o When the condition is fully treatable by conventional means and non-
standard therapy is used with a resulting delay in treatment or
diagnosis;

o When patients are referred to a complementary practitioner who is
known to be incompetent;

9