As alternative medicine practitioners, we have reached the time where integration into the conventional U.S. medical system is occurring regardless of member’s resistance or support of it happening. While past efforts to promote this integration have helped provide a path to the present state, our patient population has quickened the process by growing in numbers as users of alternative practices such as acupuncture, herbal supplementation, and energy therapies while concurrently seeking conventional health care. Even though more and more doctors are being exposed to positive patient experiences with alternative medicine, it is clear that this is not sufficient evidence for the current conventional model to accept patient claims as actionable “truth†and include alternative therapies in their care plans. Efforts have been taken within alternative professions like acupuncture, already in existence with thousands of years of documented clinical expertise, to expand their practice to include a conventional medical understanding as well as advancement of their training to a doctorate level. This growth towards integrative practice can provide a segue towards a more collaborative approach, however, currently, qualitative patient testimonials and clinical expertise together do not create an adequate basis for comfort in most medical professionals to recommend alternative therapies as a common practice.
Research appears to be a key element that could lead to more widespread adoption of alternative therapies in the conventional system. By providing a systematically measurable and analyzable body of information and accepted facts, research is what motivates the current medical system to support new ideas into practice. However, varying paradigms among conventional and alternative approaches precipitates the need for a common agenda, language, and reporting guidelines for research and new evidence for it to be “universally†accepted. This can help to validate patient’s qualitative experiences, making this useful in research along with quantitative data.
More valid and accepted data will likely create a tipping point for recognition of proven alternative therapies but true acceptance, collaboration, and creation of integrative care plans by members of the conventional system will be necessary for integration on a national scale. Biases must be uncovered and shed by some of these conventional practitioners towards acceptance of new extrinsic ideas that may change or even challenge what they have established into the monolithic system in the U.S. This bias can extend to mistaking faith in a familiar paradigm and self-preservation for truly knowing that evidence is factual and actionable. By taking a deeper look into the underlying beliefs that influence their practical clinical relationship with scientific research, conventional practitioners may be more open to effectively evaluate alternative medical research and become more amenable to realizing a robust integrative model of health care in our country.