Suchergebnisse

Source at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-2073-9 . ; Background: Many European citizens are seeking complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). These treatments are regulated very differently in the EU/EFTA countries. This may demonstrate differences in how risk associated with the use of CAM is perceived. Since most CAM treatments are practiced fairly similarly across Europe, differing risk understandings may influence patient safety for European CAM users. The overall aim of this article is thus to contribute to an overview and awareness of possible differing risk understandings in the field of CAM at a policymaking/structural level in Europe. Methods: The study is a re-analysis of data collected in the CAMbrella EU FP7 document and interview study on the regulation of CAM in 39 European countries. The 12 CAM modalities included in the CAMbrella study were ranked with regard to assumed risk potential depending on the number of countries limiting its practice to regulated professions. The 39 countries were ranked according to how many of the included CAM modalities they limit to be practiced by regulated professions. Results: Twelve of 39 countries generally understand the included CAM treatments to represent "high risk", 20 countries "low risk", while the remaining 7 countries understand CAM treatments as carrying "very little or no risk". The CAM modalities seen as carrying a risk high enough to warrant professional regulation in the highest number of countries are chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, homeopathy and osteopathy. The countries understanding most of the CAM modalities in the study as potentially high-risk treatments are with two exceptions (Portugal and Belgium) all concentrated in the southeastern region of Europe. Conclusion: The variation in regulation of CAM may represent a substantial lack of common risk understandings between health policymakers in Europe. We think the discrepancies in regulation are to a considerable degree also based on factors unrelated to patient risk. We argue that it is important for patient safety that policy makers across Europe address this confusing situation. This could be done by applying the WHO patient safety definitions and EU's policy to facilitate access to "safe and high-quality healthcare", and regulate CAM accordingly.

Source at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2179-8 . ; Intentional use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has previously only been researched in small, possibly biased, samples. There seems to be a lack of scientific information regarding healthy individual's attitudes and presumed use of CAM. The aim of this study is to describe prevalence and characteristics of participants who intend to see a CAM provider compared to participants who intend to see a medical doctor (MD) only when suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and in the need of treatment. Further to describe differences between the groups regarding expected reasons for CAM use and expected skills of CAM providers. METHOD: The survey was conducted in January 2016 as part of the "TNS Gallup Health policy Barometer". In total, 1728 individuals aged 16-92 years participated in the study, constituting an overall response rate of 47%. The survey included questions regarding opinions and attitudes towards health, health services and health politics in Norway. RESULTS: The majority of the participants (90.2%) would see a MD only if they were suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and were in the need of treatment. Men over the age of 60 with a university education tended to see a MD only. Only 9.8% of all respondents would in addition visit a CAM provider. Being an intentional user of a MD + CAM provider was associated with being a woman under the age of 60. The respondents believed that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in CAM. They also believed that individuals seeing a CAM provider have poor health and are driven by the hope of being cured. Further, that they have heard that others have good experience with such treatment. CONCLUSION: Intentional use of CAM is associated with positive attitudes, trustworthiness, and presumed positive experiences in the CAM-patient-setting. Intentional CAM users also have the impression that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in alternative therapies.

This is the peer-reviewed but unedited manuscript version of the following article: Wiesener, S., Falkenberg, T., Hegyi, G., Hök, J., Roberti di Sarsina, P. & Fønnebø, V. (2012). Legal status and regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe. Forschende Komplementärmedizin / Research in Complementary Medicine, 19(suppl 2), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343125. The final, published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1159/000343125 . ; Objective : The study aims to review the legal and regulatory status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the 27 European Union (EU) member states and 12 associated states, and at the EU/European Economic Association (EEA) level. Methods : Contact was established with national Ministries of Health, Law or Education, members of national and European CAM associations, and CAMbrella partners. A literature search was performed in governmental and scientific/non-scientific websites as well as the EUROPA and EUR-lex websites/ databases to identify documents describing national CAM regulation and official EU law documents. Results : The 39 nations have all structured legislation and regulation differently: 17 have a general CAM legislation, 11 of these have a specific CAM law, and 6 have sections on CAM included in their general healthcare laws. Some countries only regulate specific CAM treatments. CAM medicinal products are subject to the same market authorization procedures as other medicinal products with the possible exception of documentation of efficacy. The directives, regulations and resolutions in the EU that may influence the professional practice of CAM will also affect the conditions under which patients are receiving CAM treatment(s) in Europe. Conclusion : There is an extraordinary diversity with regard to the regulation of CAM practice, but not CAM medicinal products. This will influence patients, practitioners and researchers when crossing European borders. Voluntary harmonization is possible within current legislation. Individual states within culturally similar regions should harmonize their CAM legislation and regulation. This can probably safeguard against inadequately justified over- or underregulation at the national level. ; Ziel : Ziel der Studie war es, den rechtlichen und regulatorischen Status der Komplementärmedizin (CAM) in den 27 EU-Mitgliedsstaaten und 12 assoziierten Staaten auf EU-/ EWR-Ebene zu erfassen. Methoden : Zunächst wurden Kontakte zu den nationalen Ministerien für Gesundheit, Recht, oder Bildung, sowie zu nationalen und europäischen Verbänden im CAM Bereich und den CAMbrella Partnern geknüpft und etabliert. Um Dokumente zu identifizieren, die die nationale CAM Regulierung sowie die offizielle EU-Gesetzgebung reflektieren, wurden Literaturrecherchen in staatlichen, wissenschaftlichen / nichtwissenschaftlichen Websites, sowie den Web-Sites / Datenbanken EUROPA und EUR-Lex durchgeführt. Ergebnisse : Alle 39 Staaten verfügen über eine strukturierte Gesetzgebung zu CAM, die aber jeweils unterschiedlich ist. 17 verfügen über eine allgemeine Gesetzgebung zu CAM, bei 11 von diesen liegt ein spezifisches CAM-Gesetz vor, während 6 Staaten CAM spezifische Abschnitte im Rahmen ihrer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung zur Gesundheitsversorgung aufweisen. Einige Länder regeln nur bestimmte CAM-Therapien. CAM-Arzneimittel unterliegen den gleichen Zulassungsverfahren wie andere Arzneimittel, mit der möglichen Ausnahme der Dokumentation der Wirksamkeit. Die Richtlinien, Verordnungen und Beschlüsse in der Europäischen Union (EU), die die berufliche Praxis der CAM Anwendung beeinflussen, wirken sich auch auf die rechtlichen Bedingungen aus, unter denen Patienten in Europa eine CAM-Behandlung erhalten. Fazit : Die Vielfalt im Hinblick auf die Regulierung der CAM-Praxis ist außerordentlich hoch, dasselbe gilt jedoch nicht für CAM-Arzneimittel. Diese Tatsache beeinflusst Patienten, Anwender und Wissenschaftler beim Überschreiten europäischen Grenzen. Eine freiwillige Harmonisierung ist jedoch im Rahmen der derzeitigen Gesetzgebung möglich. Staaten in kulturell ähnlichen Regionen sollten daher ihre CAM-Gesetzgebung und Regulierung harmonisieren. Ein solches Vorgehen kann möglicherweise einer unangemessenen Über- oder Unterregulation auf nationaler Ebene vorbeugen.

Background: The aim of this study was to analyse global research and development (RD) strategies for traditional medicine (TM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) across the world to learn from previous and on-going activities. Methods: 52 representatives within CAMbrella nominated 43 key international stakeholders (individuals and organisations) and 15 of these were prioritised. Information from policy documents including mission statements, RD strategies and RD activities were collected in combination with personal interviews. Data were analysed using the principles of content analysis. Results: Key stakeholders vary greatly in terms of capacity, mission and funding source (private/public). They ranged from only providing research funding to having a comprehensive RD and communication agenda. A common shift in RD strategy was noted; whereas 10 years ago research focused mainly on exploring efficacy and mechanisms, today the majority of stakeholders emphasise the importance of a broad spectrum of research, including methodologies exploring context, safety and comparative effectiveness. Conclusion: The scarce public investment in this field in Europe stands in stark contrast to the large investments found in Australia, Asia and North America. There is an emerging global trend supporting a broad research repertoire, including qualitative and comparative effectiveness research. This trend should be considered by the EU given the experience and the substantial research funding committed by the included stakeholders. To facilitate international collaborative efforts and minimise the risk of investment failure, we recommend the formation of a centralised EU CAM research centre fostering a broad CAM RD agenda with the responsibility for implementing the relevant findings of CAMbrella.

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens' needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public's health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella's several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting.We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7-9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9-11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella's scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012.Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens' needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework.We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens' attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understandwhy it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EU-wide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe's reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.