Open Access Perspective Article

Aligning Practice, Policy and Education with Evidence in Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Abraham Rudnick

Department of Psychiatry and School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Canada

Corresponding Author

Received Date: May 22, 2019;  Published Date: May 31, 2019


Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is commonly used Harris PE, et al [1], but its outcomes are mixed. For example, some prevention remedies such as Echinacea for secondary prevention of common colds have not been shown to be effective [2]. And some treatment interventions such as actual (compared to simulation) acupuncture for alleviation of some types of chronic pain have been shown to be effective [3,4]. The endorsement of CAM as such – by practicing clinicians and others supporting health care such as policy makers and health educators – when it is not rigorously shown to be more effective than placebo or sham/simulation care, is arguably unethical, as has been demonstrated to be the case with orthomolecular psychiatry [5]. Such endorsement of CAM should thus be addressed from a practice, policy and education perspective.

Keywords:Evidence, Orthomolecular psychiatry, Practice, Policy, Training

Signup for Newsletter
Scroll to Top