Is There a Role for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Preventive and Promotive Health? An...
Transcript of Is There a Role for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Preventive and Promotive Health? An...
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting,
typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of
Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/maq.12153.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 1
Jennifer Jo Thompson
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Department of Anthropology
University of Georgia ([email protected])
Mark Nichter
School of Anthropology, Department of Family and Community Medicine, School of Public
Health
University of Arizona
Is There a Role for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Preventive and Promotive
Health? An Anthropological Assessment in the Context of U.S. Health Reform
Medical Anthropology Quarterly
[rh]The Role of CAM in Preventive and Promotive Health
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 2
[h1]Chronic conditions associated with lifestyle and modifiable behaviors are the leading
causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The implementation of the Affordable
Care Act offers an historic opportunity to consider novel approaches to addressing the
nation’s public health concerns. We adopt an anticipatory anthropological perspective to
consider lifestyle behavior change as common ground shared by practitioners of both
biomedicine and common forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). At issue
is whether CAM practitioners might play a more proactive and publicly endorsed role in
delivering preventive and promotive health services to address these needs. Recognizing that
this is a contentious issue, we consider two constructive roles for engaged medical
anthropologists: (1) as culture brokers helping to facilitate interprofessional communities of
preventive and promotive health practice and (2) in collaboration with health service
researchers developing patient-near evaluations of preventive and promotive health services
on patient well-being and behavior change. [health reform, complementary and alternative
medicine, Affordable Care Act, health promotion]
[h1]U.S. Health Care Crisis
The United States is facing a major health care crisis demanding more proactive preventive
and promotive health efforts and better management of chronic diseases. Chronic diseases
like heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes account for nearly 70% of U.S. deaths. These
and other conditions like chronic pain, arthritis, and depression and anxiety are also
responsible for widespread morbidity. Half of American adults report at least one chronic
condition, a quarter of whom experience significant limitations to daily activity (CDC 2012).
The costs of chronic disease are immense and increasing steadily. In 2010, U.S. health care
costs equaled 17.9% of the nation’s GDP (Martin et al. 2012), with chronic disease
accounting for nearly 75% of these (CDC 2009).
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 3
Lifestyle factors are commonly linked to poor health status (Fine et al. 2004; Manson
et al. 2004), and at the population level they are closely tied to social and societal
determinants ranging from poor access to healthy food, clean air, and safe neighborhoods to
the toxic effects of discrimination, limited employment opportunities, and unavailability of
affordable health care options (Braveman et al. 2011; Krieger 2014). The immediate and
lifecourse impacts of these factors render segments of the population structurally vulnerable
(Quesada et al. 2011) and contribute substantially to individuals’ abilities to make good
decisions about the so-called modifiable risk factors (e.g., diet, physical activity, tobacco use,
excessive alcohol use).
Social determinants of health and health disparities clearly need to be addressed
through political and community action aimed at improving population health by reducing
social inequality (Baum and Fisher 2014; Solar and Irwin 2010). Optimally, health care
providers from all health care systems in America’s pluralistic health care arena should
promote population health and address health practices in context (Baer et al. 2012; Cohn
2014) as well as employ times of illness as teachable moments to encourage behavioral
change at individual- and household-levels.
In this article, we adopt an anticipatory anthropological perspective (Mead 2005)
oriented toward implementation science (Heurtin-Roberts 2014). Building on growing
recognition of the importance of counseling about lifestyle-related behavior change in
primary health care (Whitlock et al. 2002), we consider how practitioners of complementary
and alternative medicine (CAM) might play a more proactive role in providing these services,
what it would take for them to attain insurance reimbursement for doing so, and how
implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) might provide an opportunity to bring
diverse health care providers together to form a collaborative community of practice around
health promotion. We take as our departure points: (1) increasing rates of chronic disease in
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 4
the United States; (2) implementation of U.S. health reform, which aims to (a) reduce the
burden of chronic disease through integrated programming supporting wellness, health
promotion, and disease prevention, and (b) expand access to primary care services, thereby
increasing demand on the current system of providers; and (3) many of the largest CAM
disciplines are already oriented toward and trained in providing promotive and preventive
health services to their patients. Recognizing that this is an issue of contention in biomedical
and legislative circles, we consider the roles engaged medical anthropologists might play in
cultivating interprofessional common ground around shared public health goals.
[h1]The Affordable Care Act
The 2010 Affordable Care Act aims to increase health insurance coverage and contain the
costs of health care in the United States. Among its provisions are initiatives specifically
aimed at reducing the burden—in both dollars and lives—that chronic disease places on the
U.S. health system, communities, and individuals.
At the level of the U.S. health care system, the ACA expands efforts to track and
monitor chronic disease across populations. State- and community-level initiatives aim to
expand access and coordination of comprehensive care through programs like Accountable
Care Organizations (ACOs) and “health homes” for Medicaid recipients. The ACA’s
Prevention and Public Health Fund, “designed to expand and sustain the necessary
infrastructure to prevent disease, detect it early, and manage conditions before they become
severe” (DHHS 2010) also provides incentives for employers to implement worksite wellness
programs for employees. These programs, Anderko et al. argue, “will become part of a
national public health strategy to address the increase in chronic diseases” (2012). The act
also provides funds for public education and the promotion of individual “healthy choices” to
promote health and prevent chronic disease.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 5
At the individual level, the ACA expands access to core preventive health services,
including screenings and routine services, intended to facilitate early detection and
intervention through newly implemented “Essential Health Benefits” that most plans are
required to meet. Efforts toward prevention and early detection of chronic disease are crucial
steps in interrupting current trends; however, the ACA does little to impact the
comprehensive management of chronic disease and co-/multi-morbidities through programs
that coordinate patient care across providers and settings or provide consistent support for
patients to succeed in implementing and maintaining lifestyle and behavior change and self-
care practices (Cartwright-Smith 2011).
Expanding wellness services aimed at curbing the prevalence of chronic disease is
likely to put a massive burden on health care providers (Bodenheimer et al. 2009; Goodell et
al. 2011). At issue is whether CAM providers constitute a potentially effective and largely
untapped resource for health promotion and preventive health care (Hawk et al. 2012a).
[h1]What Is CAM?
Americans have long integrated traditional, folk, and natural healing practices into their use
of conventional medicine as part of a pluralistic medical tradition, and in recent decades
globalization and dissatisfaction with mainstream medicine have further increased consumer
interest in holistic or alternative medicine. It is beyond the scope of this article to review or
debate various definitions of CAM (see IOM 2005). Here, we adopt the Institute of
Medicine’s definition, bearing in mind the diversity in theoretical orientations, rigor of
training, and evidence of safety and effectiveness across disciplines:
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a broad domain of resources that
encompasses health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying
theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system of a
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 6
particular society or culture in a given historical period. CAM includes such resources
perceived by their users as associated with positive health outcomes. (IOM 2005:19)
Our aim is to consider the potential for practitioners operating outside of the structure
of conventional medicine to provide patient-centered and evidence-based health promotion
services universally recognized as relevant and applicable across all systems of medicine.
This approach will require consensus building, training, mutual respect, and possibly
certification. Its aim is to provide the widest outreach to patient populations where—and with
whom—they seek care.
[h1]How Is CAM Used by the American Public?
CAM represents a small but important segment of the U.S. health care system. According to
the most recent data, nearly four out of 10 Americans used some form of CAM in the last 12
months (Barnes et al. 2008), with an estimated 16% reporting the use of at least one provider-
based CAM therapy (Su and Li 2011). The most commonly used practitioner-based CAM
services were chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (used by 8.4% of U.S. adults in the
last 12 months), massage (8.1%), and acupuncture (1.4%) (Hawk et al. 2012a).
These data also indicate that U.S. adults spent nearly $34 billion out-of-pocket dollars
on CAM (broadly defined) in 2007, accounting for 1.5% of total U.S. health care
expenditures and 11.2% of total out-of-pocket health expenditures. Of these, one-third ($11.9
billion) was spent on visits to CAM practitioners. The cost of CAM services has risen far
more slowly than the cost of conventional care in recent years, suggesting that the cost of
CAM services is more self-regulating than conventional medicine (Davis et al. 2013). How
much of this is due to the out-of-pocket nature of most CAM care—and thus, tied to self-
regulation on the part of prudent patient-consumers—is unclear.
Davis et al. (2011a) estimate that 17.4% of CAM users were doing so exclusively to
treat an illness. In contrast, 27.4% were using CAM solely for health promotion, and the
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 7
remainder reported both treatment and health promotion goals. Among all groups, the vast
majority of CAM use is “complementary” rather than “alternative” to biomedical care (Astin
1998; Barnes et al. 2008). Eisenberg and colleagues (2001) found that nearly four out of five
CAM users agreed that using both CAM and conventional medicine was better than either
one alone. Moreover, the greatest users of CAM were also the highest users of medical
services in general.
At the same time, there is growing evidence that a small segment of Americans
(approximately 4%)—generally those who lack health insurance—are using CAM as an
alternative to conventional medical care (Nahin et al. 2010). CAM use is associated with
having unmet medical needs or having delayed conventional medical care due to cost (Su and
Li 2011). Those using CAM as an alternative source of care are more likely to be poorer and
in worse health than those using conventional medicine (Nahin et al. 2010). This suggests
that CAM providers also treat a patient population that lacks regular access to conventional
health promotion and prevention services.
As the ACA is implemented, it will be important to investigate who continues to turn
to CAM for primary care if conventional care is more readily accessible because of the
personal insurance mandate.1 The impacts of two possible scenarios beg consideration. In the
first case, some classes of CAM providers could be more fully integrated into state health
care systems to address the existing primary care provider shortfall. Under this scenario, it is
likely that the provider classes considered for broader inclusion would be those who already
provide insurable services and have explicit training in primary care (most notably,
chiropractic and naturopathic physicians). In the second scenario, most CAM providers
would remain excluded from insurance coverage and continue to function primarily as a fee-
for-service resource. In either case, anthropologists need to investigate who continues to see
CAM providers as an alternative to conventional care, and for what reasons. Are some groups
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 8
of patients more likely to access CAM providers because they remain marginalized or
excluded from the ACA expansion of health coverage (e.g., undocumented residents, those
falling into ACA subsidy gaps, or because they cannot afford effective health insurance
despite subsidies”)? Are patients with chronic conditions more likely to seek CAM treatment
despite expanded access to conventional care? In line with the focus of this article, should
changing insurance regulations include CAM providers offering health promotion services to
patients with health risks (e.g., obesity, tobacco and alcohol dependence, sedentary lifestyle),
and will they be used when offered—either independently or within coordinated care
systems?
[h1]What Is the Role for CAM in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention?
Although CAM users, as a class, are more likely than non-users to report their health status as
“excellent” or “better” than 12 months ago, they also report more health problems than non-
users (Nguyen et al. 2011). U.S. adults with chronic disease are more likely to use CAM than
those with none (Saydah and Eberhardt 2006), and the rate of CAM use increases with the
number of reported health conditions and the number of doctor visits in the last 12 months
(Barnes et al. 2008).
Given the public health goals of the ACA, visits to CAM practitioners may be ideal
opportunities for lifestyle and behavior change counseling (Davis et al. 2011b). Many of
those using provider-based CAM therapies have health conditions (e.g., hypertension, high
cholesterol, prediabetes, or diabetes) or lifestyle conditions (e.g., overweight or obesity,
tobacco dependence, physical inactivity) that could benefit from receiving health promotion
counseling and support (Hawk et al. 2012a). In addition, they most often see their providers
two to five times per year. Hawk et al. argue that “these repeated visits provide increased
opportunities to reinforce health promotion and disease prevention messages. This is
important since “high intensity” health behavior interventions—i.e., those with greater
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 9
numbers of contacts or time spent—have been found to increase effectiveness” (2012a:22;
USPSTF 2014). As such, it would be pragmatic to more fully engage CAM providers in the
delivery of promotive health services.
Attention to health promotion and disease prevention is already widespread across the
largest groups of CAM providers and their professional organizations (see aaihm.org,
acatoday.org, accahc.org, imprime.org, and naturopathic.org). It is part of the training
standards for acupuncture and oriental medicine, chiropractic medicine, and naturopathic
medicine (see Goldstein and Weeks 2013). And although attention to prevention and
promotion in the clinical encounter varies across and within disciplines, most CAM providers
advocate a holistic approach to patient-centered care that includes spending more time with
patients, collecting detailed patient histories and information about personal habits and life
circumstances, and advocating for lifestyle changes conducive to improving health
(Williams-Piehota et al. 2011). CAM providers are predisposed to using the clinical
encounter as a “teachable moment” (Hawk et al. 2012a), to establish a connection between
health complaints and risky behaviors, and to encourage and support healthful shifts in
behavior. We view this as common ground with movement in conventional medicine toward
patient-centered care attentive to lifestyle and behavior change.
[h1]The Example of CAM Reach
Take the example of tobacco use. Although national rates of smoking declined between 2002
and 2007, rates of smoking among those using practitioner-based CAM remained the same
(Hamm et al. 2013). This puts CAM users at increased risk for cancer, heart and respiratory
diseases, and complications related to chronic illness ranging from diabetes to back pain.
Recognizing the potential role for CAM providers in catalyzing lifestyle and behavior
change, anthropologists Mark Nichter and Cheryl Ritenbaugh have been working with
addiction specialists at the University of Arizona in a pilot project training chiropractors,
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 10
traditional Chinese medicine practitioners, and massage therapists to integrate smoking
cessation into their routine practice. In this project, CAM Reach, practitioners are trained to
use brief motivational interviewing strategies to encourage patients to reconsider their
smoking (and exposure to second-hand smoke) in relation to their current health problems,
the additional health risks and economic sequela of their smoking, ways of addressing
obstacles to quitting, and the benefits of doing so (Muramoto et al. 2013).
CAM Reach has found that practitioners are enthusiastic about both getting involved
in tobacco control as a national public health issue and receiving training around catalyzing
behavioral change. Indeed, practitioners commented that they were frustrated with their
previous attempts to encourage behavior change and thus embraced the opportunity to learn
new skills. Although several were initially concerned about whether proactively advocating
for behavior change might threaten the popularity of their practice and be a business liability,
practitioners who went through the training and implemented brief cessation advice into their
practices found that their patients did not find it intrusive, nor did it adversely affect their
practice. Whether providing cessation support enhances their practice and brings in new
clients is a topic of ongoing research. Importantly, several practitioners also adapted and
applied their communication training to advocate other kinds of behavior change, including
dietary change and increased physical activity.
Reimbursement for unsolicited promotive health services emerged as an issue in this
project. Like their biomedical colleagues, CAM practitioners were concerned about the
pragmatics of reimbursement for additional time spent promoting, and then following up on,
interventions such as smoking cessation. Most CAM providers are paid out of pocket, and
they did not feel they could pass additional charges to their patients. They queried how they
might have their services covered by insurance once a practitioner received continuing
education (CEUs) and accreditation in behavior change counseling. This issue of
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 11
reimbursement for services related to health promotion and disease prevention begs some
important questions: What counts as allowable services under the ACA, and how will this be
determined? What are the best ways to evaluate behavior change and other “whole system”
impacts of CAM (Ritenbaugh et al. 2003; Verhoef et al. 2006)?
[h1]Health Insurance Coverage for CAM
Health insurance coverage for CAM varies across states due to differences in the regulation
of CAM professions and insurance plans. Although most private and public insurance plans
offer some CAM coverage (most often chiropractic manipulation), this usually includes
limitations on services covered for specific conditions as well as the number of visits
(Pelletier and Astin 2002; Steyer et al. 2002).
Given that the vast majority of CAM use is paid out of pocket, rates of practitioner-
based CAM use would likely rise if it were more widely covered by health insurance
(Wolsko et al. 2002). This raises the issue of how higher rates of practitioner-based CAM use
would affect overall health care spending. In Washington State, where insurance coverage for
services by licensed CAM providers has been mandated since 1996, data indicate that the net
effect on health insurance spending is very small (Lafferty et al. 2006; Lind et al. 2010).
Although rigorous economic evaluations of CAM are scarce, a recent systematic review of 31
better-quality studies found that nearly 30% of the cost comparisons indicated a cost-effective
health improvement that was, in fact, cost saving for certain health conditions (Herman et al.
2012). This research suggests that although more patients are likely to use CAM if covered
by insurance, resulting in a greater number of office visits to CAM practitioners, increases in
CAM services may offset overall health care costs by reducing visits to conventional
providers for problems managed by CAM practitioners at lower costs. Interventions focusing
on lifestyle change, such as diet and physical activity, might be handled by these practitioners
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 12
at lower costs as well. If so, how would the outcomes of these services compare with those
from conventional providers?
[h1]ACA and CAM
In recent years, there has been increased consideration of how to expand patient access to
CAM (Duncan et al. 2011; Vos and Brennan 2010) and whether to further integrate CAM
into existing and emerging health systems (Davis et al. 2011b; Gilmour et al. 2011; Goldstein
and Weeks 2013; Hawk et al. 2012b). In addition to navigating ideological differences
between and among CAM and biomedical providers,2 any effort to systematically integrate
CAM providers into the U.S. health system will require bridging significant structural
barriers—specifically, the dearth of data demonstrating efficacy of CAM therapies in
biomedical terms and the inconsistent regulation and licensure of CAM professions (Tillman
2002). Research and advocacy to address these barriers is ongoing in the CAM community,
and below, we suggest ways for anthropologists to contribute.
From a structural perspective, the passage of the ACA provides an historic
opportunity to reconsider how CAM providers might be integrated into the U.S. health
insurance landscape. Specifically, Section 2706 of the law expressly forbids health insurance
providers to “discriminate … against any health care provider who is acting within the scope
of that provider’s license or certification under applicable State law” (DHHS 2010). Although
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has declined to issue regulations
regarding this section (CCIIO 2013), advocates have interpreted it to mean that, whether or
not they accept CAM providers into their network, insurers will be required to cover services
performed by any CAM provider licensed to provide those services so long as they cover the
same services performed by another provider (Senn 2013).3
How widely Section 2706 will be implemented and enforced with regard to CAM
providers is yet unclear—especially considering state variation in the regulation of CAM
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 13
providers. The most obvious example of services for which CAM practitioners might seek
reimbursement under the ACA is the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) provision, which
requires new insurance plans to provide coverage for 10 categories of services, including
preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management (Cassidy 2013).4 Trained,
and in some states licensed, to provide primary care services, chiropractic and naturopathic
physicians and professional and advocacy organizations such as the Integrative Healthcare
Policy Consortium have been on the forefront of building awareness and support for full
implementation of Section 2706. From their perspectives, the ACA’s emphasis on prevention,
wellness, and personal responsibility ideally suits the care that chiropractic and naturopathic
physicians are already providing (American Chiropractic Association 2013; Goldstein and
Weeks 2013; Standish et al. 2006; see also ihpc.org, naturopathic.org, and acatoday.org).
By 2016, DHHS is likely to revisit the criteria for EHBs (Cassidy 2013). Key to
justifying CAM insurance coverage for preventive and promotive health activities will be
data demonstrating a measurable impact on chronic disease management and behavior
change. With regard to the latter, it will be important to demonstrate that CAM practitioners
trained in behavior change techniques and basic motivational interviewing are using these
skills in their practices, and achieving results as good as—if not better than—their biomedical
and allied health colleagues.
[h1]Cultivating Common Ground
In the remainder of this article, we address ways in which cooperation, if not collaboration, in
addressing the nation’s preventive and promotive health care priorities might provide a
foundation for cultivating common ground between CAM and biomedicine around shared
goals of public health. This suggestion is likely to draw ire from a number of quarters: social
scientists critical of the focus on individual health behaviors, inasmuch as it responsibilizes
the individual while obscuring social and societal inequalities that underpin health disparities;
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 14
professional organizations of CAM providers, who view themselves as already well trained to
provide promotive health care; and “quackwatchers,” who argue that any collaboration with
CAM providers amounts to condoning pseudoscience. Nevertheless, we argue that it is
advantageous to find common ground when it comes to enhancing health communication in
the service of health promotion and chronic disease prevention. And we suggest that
anthropologists, with our long history of cross-cultural translation, are well situated to help
navigate this fraught territory and clear a space for dialogue and possible collaboration.
By supporting decentralized decision-making, the ACA provides ample opportunity to
consider possible approaches to collaboration. Because CAM regulation is left up to states,
how to integrate CAM providers into the health system is likely to be addressed through
state-by-state, CAM discipline-by-discipline, experimentation. Anthropologists interested in
implementation science will have an opportunity to observe state-level deliberations and
approaches to CAM involvement in promotive health as well as practitioner-level responses
to emerging policies around training and certification—especially if reimbursement
frameworks are established. What are the local contexts that support or derail these efforts?
What are the impacts of broader involvement in promotive health by CAM providers, and
how should these impacts be evaluated, beyond measuring shifts in overt behavior?
[h1]Developing Communities of Practice
Like their biomedical counterparts, many CAM providers are already actively involved in
caring for patients with chronic conditions. Finding ways to better encourage and support
patients to achieve behavior change is a shared interest and can serve as a site for the
development of an interprofessional community of promotive health practice. By definition, a
community of practice (CoP) consists of individuals (practitioners) who come together to
exchange information and experiences around a shared domain of knowledge and activity
(practice) (Wenger 1998). CoPs are often loose networks of individuals built around areas of
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 15
mutual concern, shared language and practices, and a sense of mutual respect. They can
provide unique opportunities for members of diverse groups—many of whom would not
ordinarily interact with one another—to develop a shared body of knowledge and shared
professional norms and identity, including shared training and certification.
Developing interprofessional CoPs around preventive and promotive health will
require efforts to bridge epistemological differences between conventional and CAM
providers. Given our long history of translating across cultural intersections, anthropologists
are well suited to act as knowledge brokers in this process (Kislov et al. 2011). By conducting
ethnographic research into how different professions approach prevention and wellness,
anthropologists have and should continue to identify commonalities (e.g., boundary objects
that include shared language and practices, as well as shared challenges and frustrations) that
can facilitate productive dialogue and enable conceptual translation across disciplines (Star
and Griesemer 1989; Swan et al. 2007). Along these lines, anthropologists can assist in
identifying issues that practitioners across disciplines agree need improvement and are
willing to engage in new ways.
For example, CAM Reach is attempting to establish a CoP around smoking cessation
that builds on the observation that both conventional and CAM practitioners recognize a need
for more concerted efforts to change patient behavior, are frustrated with their current lack of
success doing so, and are open to learning new evidence-based communication techniques
toward this end. Shared approaches—like training in the 5As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist,
and Arrange) and 5Rs (Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition) of tobacco
cessation (Fiore et al. 2009; Whitlock et al. 2002), and in basic motivational interviewing
skills (Miller and Rollnick 2009)—provide common language and a shared knowledge base
that enables communication, referral, and the sharing of experiences to enhance the
experiential knowledge generated through clinical practice.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 16
A number of studies have pointed to interprofessional education as a means of
facilitating collaboration among diverse professionals (Leathard 2013). Although there have
been substantial efforts to integrate biomedical knowledge into the curricula of the largest
CAM disciplines, as well as efforts to integrate basic knowledge of CAM disciplines into
medical training, to date there has been little collaborative, interprofessional education
focused on areas of shared interest (see Gaboury et al. 2009). Ethnographic research can
contribute to the development of training programs focused on health promotion and disease
prevention that crosscut therapeutic systems while maintaining respect for the principles of
each. Detailed information about the opportunities and challenges different kinds of
practitioners face when providing behavior-related counseling and support will aid in the
design of interprofessional training programs that address the concerns of a diverse, emerging
CoP while simultaneously helping to build a shared body of knowledge and shared language
around health promotion and behavior change.
Establishing interprofessional CoPs around health promotion and illness prevention
addresses national public health priorities and constitutes a positive step toward bridging
epistemological and structural divides across systems of medicine that share some common
goals. By supporting efforts to create CoPs focused on specific health concerns—like
smoking, obesity, or wellness among patients with chronic illness—medical anthropologists
have the opportunity to contribute to implementation science. They may do so at multiple
levels: participation in the development of interprofessional pilot projects at the community
level, collaboration with national- and state-level professional organizations and colleges, and
engagement with efforts to investigate the effects of these collaborations at all levels. Many
challenges will need to be addressed, not the least of which will be related to development of
shared accreditation, certification,5 or licensure for skills in behavior change, and a
framework for reimbursement for these services.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 17
[h1]Evaluating Effectiveness
Another key area for anthropological contribution is in the development of patient-centered
measures of treatment effectiveness to complement standardized measures of behavior
change. At the center of contemporary biomedicine is evidence-based medicine (EBM), a
framework that simultaneously works to orient, govern, and legitimate biomedicine (Nichter
2013). EBM is currently under critical review by both biomedical and CAM researchers
engaging in a reflexive critique of science through science (see Lambert 2006; Mykhalovskiy
and Weir 2004). These critiques scrutinize the methods that have been held up as generating
so-called gold standard evidence beyond dispute and call for an expansion of the kinds of
evidence that can provide valuable insight into the effects of health interventions.
At the top of the hierarchy of biomedical evidence is the randomized controlled trial
(RCT). In theory, RCTs are the means by which scientific biomedicine can identify the most
efficacious and efficient way to treat, manage, or cure any given disease and rule out
treatments that are ineffective or unsafe. In many ways, this scientific rigor is what has made
scientific biomedicine highly successful in reducing the morbidity and mortality of disease
and infection around the world. Yet RCTs are not free from research bias and they produce
only a particular kind of evidence: evidence of population-level, statistical efficacy under
particular conditions (Kaptchuk 2001).6
A key criticism that biomedicine and proponents of EBM have levied against CAM
has been its general inability to hold up to RCT scrutiny. For a number of reasons related to
problems with appropriate controls, blinding, and standardization of protocol, CAM
interventions have generally not performed well in RCTs. With notable exceptions (e.g.,
Vickers et al. 2012), CAM therapies often perform “no better than placebo” in RCTs and are
thus dismissed as ineffectual, with clinical benefit being ascribed to the placebo effect (Shang
et al. 2005). However, limiting assessments of an intervention to the data regularly produced
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 18
in RCTs can overlook evidence suggesting that these same interventions may have important
therapeutic effects, including support for broad shifts in behavior (Fonnebo et al. 2007;
Verhoef et al. 2002).
We do not suggest that CAM be held to a different standard of evidence; rather, we
suggest that there is room for an expanded view of what counts as evidence—in both
biomedicine and CAM—when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed
at supporting behavior change. We concur with the IOM Committee on the Use of
Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public, which recommends that:
the same principles and standards of evidence of treatment effectiveness apply to all
treatments, whether currently labeled as conventional medicine or CAM.
Implementing this recommendation requires that investigators use and develop as
necessary common methods, measures, and standards for the generation and
interpretation of evidence necessary for making decisions about the use of CAM and
conventional therapies. (IOM 2005:2)
Recognizing that RCTs may not always be the most practical way to evaluate the
effectiveness of complex therapies in the real world, the IOM committee encouraged
innovation in research design—including preference trials and observation studies—aimed at
generating better evidence for use in a patient-centered treatment context. This work is
underway (see Caspi et al. 2000; Fonnebo et al. 2007; Paterson et al. 2009; Verhoef et al.
2005).
More recently, the ACA established the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
(PCORI) to fund research focused on helping patients make “better-informed health care
decisions.” Among the factors considered in this process are “individual’s preferences,
autonomy and needs, focusing on outcomes that people notice and care about” (PCORI
2013).7 As such, this may be an opportune time to broaden research on shifts in health and
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 19
wellness beyond specific disease-oriented outcome measures. One line of research receiving
increased attention in both biomedical and CAM circles pays credence to patient-reported
outcomes (PROs): subjective reports of the overall impact of interventions in terms of quality
of life, state of wellness, and the ability to engage in and sustain behavior change (Basch
2014; Coon and McLeod 2013). PROs are not a study design, but rather measures within a
design, whether interventional (e.g., RCTs) or observational (e.g., cohort studies). Measures
along these lines may be better suited to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at
catalyzing and sustaining behavior change than standard disease-specific outcome measures.
Further, they could readily be adapted for use by providers of all types to map changes in
patterns of risky and healthful behaviors and to identify patients at increased risk for
comorbidities including mental health concerns that frequently accompany chronic disease.
Medical anthropologists have a long history of studying subjective accounts of both
illness and treatment experience and can play a key role in developing measures of
effectiveness that are attentive to patient-reported and whole-systems outcomes. For example,
a Self-Assessment of Change Questionnaire was developed by Ritenbaugh and colleagues
after analyzing patients’ narratives of first-hand experiences with CAM therapies to identify
items grounded in lay language that identified multidimensional shifts in well-being not
captured by existing instruments (Ritenbaugh et al. 2011). This instrument has been
extensively evaluated to confirm that it is representative of patients’ lived-experiences with
CAM (Thompson et al. 2011). This is just one example of the type of research
anthropologists may be involved in that can contribute to better evaluation of the
effectiveness of interventions from an experience-near perspective.
What remains to be investigated is whether perceived shifts in cognition, embodied
states, identity, and so on translate into a sustained sense of well-being and behavior
change—and, for health service researchers, lower overall health costs. Anthropologists are
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 20
ideally suited to examine both the meaning of evidence and the effectiveness of behavioral
interventions from perspectives that are both experience-near and grounded in structural
critique. This dual approach allows us to better understand how the lived experience of social
and societal determinants of health moderates the impacts of individual-focused behavior
change interventions and their short-term and sustained effectiveness (Messac et al. 2013).
[h1]Conclusion
Chronic conditions associated with smoking and obesity, chronic pain, anxiety, and
depression are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. These are
shared areas of concern for biomedical and CAM providers. Efforts to encourage individual
behavioral change are clearly limited by social and societal determinants of health that must
be redressed through political and community action. We do not argue that including CAM
providers in efforts to encourage and support behavior change will solve population health
problems, but we do see it as one piece in the puzzle—a piece with the potential to reinforce
messages that many patients are already receiving from conventional providers. We also see
CAM practitioners reaching patient populations not accessing conventional providers, either
because of ideology or systemic factors like cost or citizenship status.
The implementation of the ACA offers an historic opportunity to consider novel
approaches to address the nation’s critical public health needs. We have considered the
potential to engage the largest classes of CAM providers more fully in preventive and
promotive health efforts. This is pragmatic: CAM practitioners already promote holistic
wellness, have longer appointments, and engage patients in discussions about the relationship
between lifestyle and health. Studies like CAM Reach demonstrate that CAM providers are
enthusiastic about developing and implementing new skills aimed at advocating behavior
change, and projects like The Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 21
Health Care’s “Primary Care Project” indicate that colleges training CAM practitioners want
to be involved in disseminating these skills (Goldstein and Weeks 2013).
Medical anthropologists can help identify and cultivate common ground shared by
conventional and CAM providers (and their professional organizations), assist in the
implementation and monitoring of interprofessional programs, and participate in the
development of culturally sensitive and patient-near evaluations of behavior change
effectiveness. Health providers of all stripes are frustrated in their efforts to communicate
urgency around chronic disease prevention and to catalyze behavior change. This is an ideal
place to begin productive dialogue and an exchange of experience between diverse types of
practitioners who are ultimately committed to the same patient and population health goals.
The development of interprofessional training, certification, and the formation of
communities of practice around health promotion and illness prevention appear to us to be
bold endeavors worth attempting as a means of addressing the nation’s public health
priorities.
[h1]Notes
Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Amy Dao, Jessica Mulligan, and Cheryl Ritenbaugh,
as well as two anonymous reviewers, for careful critiques and feedback on earlier versions of
this article. Preliminary work on this essay was supported by NIH/NCCAM Arizona
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research Training Program, T32 AT01287 (Iris
Bell, PI), in which JJT was a predoctoral fellow and MN faculty. MN is a co-investigator on
NIH/NCI Tobacco Cessation Training for Acupuncture, Massage, and Chiropractic
Practitioners (CAM Reach), R01
CA137375-01A1 (Myra Muramoto, PI).
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 22
1. It is unclear the degree to which the ACA will make conventional health care
available to those currently excluded or marginalized from the system. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the law would expand coverage—and thus access to basic
care—to 14 million non-elderly Americans by 2014 and another 13 to 16 million in the
following decade (CBO 2012). Following the close of the turbulent 2014 open-enrollment
period, the White House reports that enrollment has topped 8 million through the health care
exchanges, with another 3 million enrolling in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance
Program through February 2014 (OPS 2014).
2. In-depth consideration of the ideological barriers to integration is beyond the scope
of this article. See Kaptchuk and Miller (2005), Hollenberg and Muzzin (2010), and
aihm.org, imprime.org, and imconsortium.org.
3. This is the site of contentious debate between administrators, lawmakers, and
health care providers. See DHHS advice on the implementation of Section 2706(a) (CCIIO
2013), Senator Tom Harkin’s response (U.S. Senate 2013), and the debate between bloggers
at theintegratorblog.com and sciencebasedmedicine.org.
4. In contrast to recommendations from the IOM Committee on Defining and
Revising an Essential Health Benefits Package for Qualified Health Plans (2012), DHHS has
directed each state to define its own EHB package based on a state “benchmark plan.” Thus,
how comprehensive the EHBs for prevention and management of chronic disease are is likely
to vary from state to state.
5. Although regulation is in the hands of the governing body of each therapeutic
system, certification in behavior change techniques such as smoking cessation or
motivational interviewing toward behavior change could be established with the same
standards of training offered as CEUs across disciplines. CAM Reach is currently looking
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 23
into this possibility for tobacco cessation training. See aihm.org for efforts emerging within
the CAM and integrative medicine communities.
6. Although EBM is undergirded by positivist notions of objectivity and universal
truth, the application of RCT data in clinical practice is far more nuanced, and RCT findings
are subject to interpretation by clinicians who use population-based data to inform individual
patient care (Nichter 2013). In the context of patient-centered care, patients and clinicians
draw on RCT evidence as one resource—along with information about what services are
covered by insurers, and patient preferences, values, and goals—to inform and guide shared
clinical decision-making (Thompson 2010).
7. While PCORI’s primary goal is an empirical, comparative assessment of the
clinical effectiveness of medical intervention, attention to patients’ values and preferences as
relevant factors in the evaluation of health interventions is notable and makes strides toward
IOM’s call for attending to patient preferences in clinical research.
[h1]References Cited
American Chiropractic Association
2013 Health Reform. http://www.acatoday.org/content_css.cfm?CID=3400 (accessed June
13, 2013).
Anderko, L., J. S. Roffenbender, R. Z. Goetzel, F. Millard, K. Wildenhaus, C. DeSantis, and
W. Novelli.
2012 Promoting Prevention through the Affordable Care Act: Workplace Wellness.
Preventing Chronic Disease 2012 9:120092. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.120092.
Astin, J. A.
1998 Why Patients Use Alternative Medicine—Results of a National Study. JAMA
279:1548–1553.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 24
Baer, H. A., C. Beale, R. Canaway, and G. Connolly
2012 A Dialogue between Naturopathy and Critical Medical Anthropology. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly 26:241–256.
Barnes, P. M., B. Bloom, and R. Nahin
2008 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use among Adults and Children: United
States, 2007. National health statistics reports; no 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center
for Health Statistics. http://nccam.nih.gov/sites/nccam.nih.gov/files/news/nhsr12.pdf
(accessed February 25, 2013).
Basch, E.
2014 New Frontiers in Patient-Reported Outcomes: Adverse Event Reporting, Comparative
Effectiveness, and Quality Assessment. Annual Review of Medicine 65:307–317.
Baum, F., and M. Fisher
2014 Why Behavioural Health Promotion Endures Despite Its Failure to Reduce Health
Inequities. Sociology of Health & Illness 36:213–225.
Bodenheimer, T., E. Chen, and H. D. Bennett
2009 Confronting the Growing Burden of Chronic Disease: Can the U.S. Health Care
Workforce Do the Job? Health Affairs 28:64–74.
Braveman, P., S. Egerter, and D. R Williams
2011 The Social Determinants of Health: Coming of Age. Annual Review of Public Health
32:381–398.
Cartwright-Smith, L.
2011 Chronic Disease Management. George Washington University Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. http://healthreformgps.org/resources/chronic-disease-management/
(accessed February 25, 2013).
Caspi, O., C. Millen, and L. Sechrest
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 25
2000 Integrity and Research: Introducing the Concept of Dual Blindness. How Blind Are
Double-blind Clinical Trials in Alternative Medicine? Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine 6:493–498.
Cassidy, A.
2013 Health Policy Brief: Essential Health Benefits. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_91.pdf (accessed
August 31, 2013).
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
2012 Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provision of the Affordable Care Act Updated
for the Recent Supreme Court Decision. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-
CoverageEstimates.pdf; (accessed October 5, 2014).
Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, The (CCIIO)
2013 Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs—Set 15. The Center for Consumer
Information & Insurance Oversight. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-
FAQs/aca_implementation_faqs15.html (accessed August 31, 2013).
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
2009 Chronic Diseases: The Power to Prevent, The Call to Control: At a Glance 2009.
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/chronic.htm (accessed
February 21, 2013).
2012 CDC Chronic Disease Overview.
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm (accessed February 21, 2013).
Cohn, S.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 26
2014 From Health Behaviours to Health Practices: An Introduction. Sociology of Health &
Illness 36:157–162.
Coon, C. D., and L. D. McLeod
2013 Patient-reported Outcomes: Current Perspectives and Future Directions. Clinical
Therapeutics 35:399–401.
Davis, M. A., B. I. Martin, I. D. Coulter, and W. B. Weeks
2013 U.S. Spending on Complementary and Alternative Medicine during 2002–08
Plateaued, Suggesting Role in Reformed Health System. Health Affairs 32:45–52.
Davis, M. A., A. N. West, W. B. Weeks, and B. E. Sirovich
2011a Health Behaviors and Utilization among Users of Complementary and Alternative
Medicine for Treatment versus Health Promotion. Health Services Research 46:1402–
1416.
Davis, M. A., J. M. Whedon, and W. B. Weeks
2011b Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practitioners and Accountable Care
Organizations: The Train Is Leaving the Station. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine 17:669–674.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
2010 Affordable Care Act: Laying the Foundation for Prevention.
http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/acaprevention.html (accessed February 21,
2013).
Duncan, A. D., J. M. Liechty, C. Miller, G. Chinoy, and R. Ricciardi
2011 Employee Use and Perceived Benefit of a Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Wellness Clinic at a Major Military Hospital: Evaluation of a Pilot Program. Journal Of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine 17:809–815.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 27
Eisenberg, D. M., R. C. Kessler, M. I. Van Rompay, T. J. Kaptchuk, S. A. Wilkey, S. Appel,
and R. B. Davis
2001 Perceptions about Complementary Therapies Relative to Conventional Therapies
among Adults Who Use Both: Results from a National Survey. Annals of Internal
Medicine 135:344–351.
Fine, L. J., G. S. Philogene, R. Gramling, E. J. Coups, S. Sinha
2004 Prevalence of Multiple Chronic Disease Risk Factors: 2001 National Health Interview
Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27:18–24.
Fiore, M.C., C. R. Jaen, T. B. Baker, W. C. Bailey, N. Benowitz, S. J. Curry, S. F. Dorfman,
E. S. Froelicher, M. G. Goldstein, C. G. Healton, and P. N. Henderson
2009 Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Quick Reference Guide for
Clinicians. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: Public Health
Service.http://www.uclahealth.org/workfiles/smoke-free/treating-tobacco-
dependence.pdf; (accessed August 31, 2013).
Fonnebo, V., S. Grimsgaard, H. Walach, C. Ritenbaugh, A. J. Norheim, H. MacPherson, G.
Lewith, L. Launse, M. Koithan, T. Falkenberg, H. Boon, and M. Aickin
2007 Researching Complementary and Alternative Treatments: The Gatekeepers Are Not at
Home. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7:7.
Gaboury, I., M. Bujold, H. Boon, and D. Moher
2009 Interprofessional Collaboration within Canadian Integrative Healthcare Clinics: Key
Components. Social Science & Medicine 69:707–715.
Gilmour, J., C. Harrison, L. Asadi, M. H. Cohen, and S. Vohra
2011 Hospitals and Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Managing Responsibilities,
Risk, and Potential Liability. Pediatrics 128(Suppl 4):S193–S199.
Goldstein, M. S., and J. Weeks
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 28
2013 Meeting the Nation’s Primary Care Needs: Current and Prospective Roles of Doctors
of Chiropractic and Naturopathic Medicine, Practitioners of Acupuncture and Oriental
Medicine, and Direct-entry Midwives. Academic Consortium for Complementary and
Alternative Health Care. http://accahc.org/images/stories/pcp_012314_final_revision.pdf
(accessed June 14, 2013).
Goodell, S., C. Dower, and E. O’Neil
2011 Primary Care Workforce in the United States. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2011/rwjf70613 (accessed
June 14, 2013).
Hamm, E., M. L. Muramoto, A. Howerter, L. Floden, and L. Govindarajan
2014 Use of Provider-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Adult Smokers
in the United States: Comparison from the 2002 and 2007 NHIS Survey. American
Journal of Health Promotion: onlineFirst. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.121116-
QUAN-559.
Hawk, C., H. Ndetan, and M. W. Evans, Jr.
2012a Potential Role of Complementary and Alternative Health Care Providers in Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: An Analysis of National Health Interview
Survey Data. Preventive Medicine 54:18–22.
Hawk, C., M. Schneider, M. W. Evans, Jr, and D. Redwood
2012b Consensus Process to Develop a Best-practice Document on the Role of Chiropractic
Care in Health Promotion, Disease Prevention, and Wellness. Journal of Manipulative
and Physiological Therapeutics 35:556–567.
Herman, P. M., B. M. Craig, and O. Caspi
2005 Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Cost-effective? A Systematic
Review. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 5:11.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 29
Herman, P. M., B. L. Poindexter, C. M. Witt, and D. M. Eisenberg
2012 Are Complementary Therapies and Integrative Care Cost-effective? A Systematic
Review of Economic Evaluations. BMJ Open 2:5. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001046.
Heurtin-Roberts, S.
2014 But Will It Work Here? Anthropology News. http://www.anthropology-
news.org/index.php/2014/03/07/but-will-it-work-here/ (accessed March 25, 2014).
Hollenberg, D., and L. Muzzin
2010 Epistemological Challenges to Integrative Medicine: An Anti-colonial Perspective on
the Combination of Complementary/Alternative Medicine with Biomedicine. Health
Sociology Review 19:34–56.
Institute of Medicine (IOM)
2005 Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the United States. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
IOM and Committee on Defining and Revising an Essential Health Benefits Package for
Qualified Health Plans
2012 Essential Health Benefits: Balancing Coverage and Cost. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Kaptchuk, T. J.
2001 The Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial: Gold Standard or Golden
Calf? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54:541–549.
Kaptchuk, T. J., and F. G. Miller
2005 What Is the Best and Most Ethical Model for the Relationship between Mainstream
and Alternative Medicine: Opposition, Integration, or Pluralism? Academic Medicine
80:286–290.
Kislov, R., G. Harvey, and K. Walshe
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 30
2011 Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: Lessons from the
Theory of Communities of Practice. Implementation Science 6:64.
Krieger, N.
2014 Got Theory? On the 21st c. CE Rise of Explicit Use of Epidemiologic Theories of
Disease Distribution: A Review and Ecosocial Analysis. Current Epidemiology Reports
1:45–46.
Lafferty, W. E., P. T. Tyree, A. S. Bellas, C. A. Watts, B. K. Lind, K. J. Sherman, D. c.
Cherkin, and D. E. Grembowski
2006 Insurance Coverage and Subsequent Utilization of Complementary and Alternative
Medicine Providers. American Journal of Managed Care 12:397–404.
Lambert, H.
2006 Accounting for EBM: Notions of Evidence in Medicine. Social Science & Medicine
62:2633–2645.
Leathard, A.
2013 Interprofessional Collaboration: From Policy to Practice in Health and Social Care.
New York: Routledge.
Lind, B. K., W. E. Lafferty, P. T. Tyree, and P. K. Diehr
2010 Comparison of Health Care Expenditures among Insured Users and Nonusers of
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Washington State: A Cost Minimization
Analysis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 16:411–417.
Manson, J. E., P. J. Skerett, P. Greenland, and T. B. VanItalie
2004 The Escalating Pandemics of Obesity and Sedentary Lifestyle: A Call to Action for
Clinicians. Archives of Internal Medicine 164:249.
Martin, A. B., D. Lassman, B. Washington, A. Caitlin, and the National Health Expenditure
Accounts Team
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 31
2012 Growth in U.S. Health Spending Remained Slow in 2010; Health Share of Gross
Domestic Product Was Unchanged from 2009. Health Affairs 31:208–219.
Mead, M.
2005 The World Ahead: An Anthropologist Anticipates the Future. Volume 6. New York:
Berghahn Books.
Messac, L., D. Ciccarone, J. Draine, and P. Bourgois
2013 The Good-enough Science-and-Politics of Anthropological Collaboration with
Evidence-based Clinical Research: Four Ethnographic Case Studies. Social Science &
Medicine 99:176–186.
Miller, W. R., and S. Rollnick
2009 Ten Things that Motivational Interviewing Is Not. Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychotherapy 37:129–140.
Muramoto, M., M. Zuckerman, E. Zuckerman, M. Nichter, C. Ritenbaugh, J. Gordon, and J.
Cunningham
2013 CAM Practitioners: Public Health Partners for Promoting Healthy Lifestyles.
American Public Health Association (abstract).
https://apha.confex.com/apha/141am/webprogram/Paper282398.html (accessed August
8, 2013).
Mykhalovskiy, E., and L. Weir
2004 The Problem of Evidence-based Medicine: Directions for Social Science. Social
Science & Medicine 59:1059–1069.
Nahin, R., J. Dahlhamer, and B. Stussman
2010 Health Need and the Use of Alternative Medicine among Adults Who Do Not Use
Conventional Medicine. BMC Health Services Research 10:220.
Nguyen, L. T., R. B. Davis, T. J. Kaptchuk, and R. S. Phillips
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 32
2011 Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Self-rated Health Status:
Results from a National Survey. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26:399–404.
Nichter, M.
2013 The Rise and Transformation of Evidence-based Medicine. American Anthropologist
115:647–649.
Office of the Press Secretary (OPS)
2014 FACT SHEET: Affordable Care Act by the Numbers: The White House,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/17/fact-sheet-affordable-care-act-
numbers (accessed May 6, 2014).
Paterson, C., C. Baarts, L. Launse, and M. J. Verhoef
2009 Evaluating Eomplex Health Interventions: A Critical Analysis of the “Outcomes”
Concept. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 9:18.
Patient-centered Outcomes Research (PCORI)
2013 Patient-centered Outcomes Research. http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support/pcor/
(accessed July 12, 2013).
Pelletier, K. R., and J. A. Astin
2002 Integration and Reimbursement of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by
Managed Care and Insurance Providers: 2000 Update and Cohort Analysis. Alternative
Therapies in Health and Medicine 8:38–39.
Quesada, J., L. K. Hart, and P. Bourgois
2011 Structural Vulnerability and Health: Latino Migrant Laborers in the United States.
Medical Anthropology 30:339–362.
Ritenbaugh, C., M. Nichter, M. A. Nichter, K. L. Kelly, C. M. Sims, I. R. Bell, H. M.
Castaneda, C. R. Elder, M. S. Koithan, E. G. Sutherland, M. J. Verhoef, S. L. Warber,
and S. J. Coons
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 33
2011 Developing a Patient-centered Outcome Measure for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine Therapies: I. Defining Content and Format. BMC Complementary and
Alternative Medicine 11:135.
Ritenbaugh, C., M. Verhoef, S. Fleishman, H. Boon, and A. Leis
2003 Whole Systems Research: A Discipline for Studying Complementary and Alternative
Medicine. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 9:32–36.
Saydah, S. H., and M. S. Eberhardt
2006 Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Adults with Chronic
Diseases: United States 2002. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
12:805–812.
Senn, D.
2013 Implementing the Nondiscriminaton Provision of the Affordable Care Act: Expanding
Access and Choice for Your Patients. Presented at the Strategizing Inclusive
Implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Region X: The Roles of Integrative
Providers Meeting, June 10. http://www.ihpc.org/wp-content/uploads/Bastyr-Regional-
Meeting-Senn-PPT.pdf (accessed April 14, 2014).
Shang, A., K. Huwiler-Muntener, L. Nartey, P. Juni, S. Dorig, J. A. Sterne, D. Pewsner, M.
Egger
2005 Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? Comparative Study of
Placebo-controlled Trials of Homoeopathy and Allopathy. Lancet 366:726–732.
Solar, O, and A. Irwin
2010 A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Social
Determinants of Health Discussion. Geneva: WHO.
Standish, L. .J, C. Calabrese, and P. Snider
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 34
2006 The Naturopathic Medical Research Agenda: The Future and Foundation of
Naturopathic Medical Science. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
12:341–345.
Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer
1989 Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of
Science 19:387–420.
Steyer, T. E., G. L. Freed, and P. M. Lantz
2002 Medicaid Reimbursement for Alternative Therapies. Alternative Therapies in Health
and Medicine 8:84–88.
Su, D., and L. Li
2011 Trends in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States:
2002–2007. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 22:296–310.
Swan, J., M. Bresnen, S. Newell, and M. Robertson
2007 The Object of Knowledge: The Role of Objects in Biomedical Innovation. Human
Relations 60:1809–1837.
Thompson, J. J.
2010 Managing Menopause: An Ethnographic Study of Women’s Midlife Information-
seeking and Decision-making in the Southwest U.S. Ph.D. dissertation, School of
Anthropology, University of Arizona.
Thompson, J. J., K. L. Kelly, C. Ritenbaugh, A. L. Hopkins, C. M. Sims, and S. J. Coons
2011 Developing a Patient-centered Outcome Measure for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine Therapies II: Demonstrating Content Validity through Cognitive Interviews.
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 11. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-11-136.
Tillman, R.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 35
2002 Paying for Alternative Medicine: The Role of Health Insurers. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 583:64–75.
U.S. Senate
2013 Senate Report 113-071, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S.
Senate. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp1132kIPg&r_n=sr071.113&dbname=cp113&&sel=TOC_415278
(accessed August 31, 2013).
U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
2014 Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality. Washington, DC: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-
recommendations/guide/index.html (accessed October 8, 2014).
Verhoef, M. J., A. L. Casebeer, and R. J. Hilsden
2002 Assessing Efficacy of Complementary Medicine: Adding Qualitative Research
Methods to the “Gold Standard.” The Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine 8:275–281.
Verhoef, M. J. G. Lewith, C. Ritenbaugh, H. Boon, S. Fleishman, and A. Leis
2005 Complementary and Alternative Medicine Whole Systems Research: Beyond
Identification of Inadequacies of the RCT. Complementary Therapies in Medicine
13:206–212.
Verhoef, M. J., L. C. Vanderheyden, T. Dryden, D. Mallory, and M. A. Ware
2006 Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine Interventions: In Search of
Appropriate Patient-centered Outcome Measures. BMC Complementary and Alternative
Medicine 6:6–38.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 36
Vickers, A. J., A. M. Cronin, A. C. Maschino, G. Lewith, H. MacPherson, N. E. Foster, K. J.
Sherman, C. M. Witt, and K. Linde
2012 Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis. Archives of
Internal Medicine 172:1444–1453.
Vos, L., and R. Brennan
2010 Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Shaping a Marketing Research Agenda.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28:349.
Wenger, E.
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Whitlock, E. P., C. T. Orleans, N. Pender, and J. Allan
2002 Evaluating Primary Care Behavioral Counseling Interventions: An Evidence-based
Approach. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 22:267–284.
Williams-Piehota, P. A., F. M. Sirois, C. M. Bann, K. B. Isenberg, and E. G. Walsh
2011 Agents of Change: How Do Complementary and Alternative Medicine Providers Play
a Role in Health Behavior Change? Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine
17:22–30.
Wolsko, P. M., D. M. Eisenberg, R. B. Davis, S. L. Ettner, and R. S. Phillips
2002 Insurance Coverage, Medical Conditions, and Visits to Alternative Medicine
Providers—Results of a National Survey. Archives of Internal Medicine 162:281–287.