Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
EDITOR If we are to develop an integrated approach that will allow us to
combine the best of conventional medicine and complementary and
alternative medicine in order to provide an informed choice for our
patients, then it must be research led and evidence based. In the
United States the Office of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
within the National Institutes of Health has now become a centre in its
own right, providing both a structure and appropriate funding ($50m
(£33m) per annum) that will sustain a concerted research effort.
Much research in complementary and alternative medicine originates from
the United Kingdom. Without appropriate support, however, this
embryonic academic discipline will certainly flounder. Research funding
is sourced either directly through tax revenue or through charitable
contributions; the public's use of complementary and alternative
medicine is increasing dramatically throughout the Western
world.5 Public sources of funding should be responsive to
patient need, and therefore more should be made available to develop
research structures within complementary and alternative medicine.
The development of, and investment in, research into complementary and
alternative medicine is an important national priority in response to
the public's growing use of these therapeutic interventions.
The ABC of Complementary Medicine is
welcome.1 Ernst has drawn attention to an important issue
in relation to complementary and alternative medicine.2 He
previously showed that 0.08% of the total research budget in the
United Kingdom is being spent on complementary and alternative
medicine.3 The Foundation for Integrated Medicine's
report emphasises the importance of an appropriately resourced national
agenda for research into complementary and alternative medicine and
suggests possible areas for research.4 The deans of all
medical schools in the United Kingdom were asked to comment on the
initial draft of this document, and those who responded unanimously
highlighted the need for more research in association with an
appropriate structure to carry such a policy forward.4
University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD
E Ernst
Department of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter,
Exeter EX2 4NT
Simon Mills
Centre for Complementary Health Studies, University of Exeter,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
Peter Fisher
Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, London WC1N 3HR
Jonathan Monckton
Research Council for Complementary Medicine, London SW6 3JD
David Reilly
Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, Glasgow G12 0NR
David Peters
Centre for Community Care and Primary Health, University of
Westminster, London W1M 8JS
Kate Thomas
Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
S1 4DA
| 1. |
Zollman C, Vickers A.
What is complementary medicine?
BMJ
1999;
319:
693-696 |
| 2. | Ernst E. Commitment to complementary medicine: politically correct lip service or co-ordinated strategy? J R Coll Phys Lond 1999; 33: 114-115[Medline]. |
| 3. |
Ernst E.
Regulating complementary medicine.
BMJ
1996;
313:
882 |
| 4. | Foundation for Integrated Medicine, on behalf of the Steering Committee for the Prince of Wales Initiative on Integrated Medicine. Integrated healthcare. A way forward for the next five years? Discussion document. London: Foundation for Integrated Medicine, 1997. |
| 5. |
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, et al.
Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. Results of a follow-up national survey.
JAMA
1998;
280:
1569-1575 |
Read all Rapid Responses