Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHoenders, Rogier
dc.contributor.authorGhelman, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorPortella, Caio
dc.contributor.authorSimmons, Samantha
dc.contributor.authorLocke, Amy
dc.contributor.authorCramer, Holger
dc.contributor.authorGallego-Perez, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorJong, Miek C.
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-17T09:06:39Z
dc.date.available2024-10-17T09:06:39Z
dc.date.issued2024-06-11
dc.description.abstractDespite important progress in modern medicine, widely regarded as an indispensable foundation of healthcare in all highly advanced nations and regions, not all patients respond well to available treatments in biomedicine alone. Additionally, there are concerns about side effects of many medications and interventions, the unsustainable cost of healthcare and the low resolution of chronic non-communicable diseases and mental disorders whose incidence has risen in the last decades. Besides, the chronic stress and burnout of many healthcare professionals impairs the therapeutic relationship. These circumstances call for a change in the current paradigm and practices of biomedicine healthcare. Most of the world population (80%) uses some form of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (T&CM), usually alongside biomedicine. Patients seem equally satisfied with biomedicine and T&CM, but in the field of T&CM there are also many challenges, such as unsupported claims for safety and/or efficacy, contamination of herbal medicines and problems with regulation and quality standards. As biomedicine and T&CM seem to have different strengths and weaknesses, integration of both approaches may be beneficial. Indeed, WHO has repeatedly called upon member states to work on the integration of T&CM into healthcare systems. Integrative medicine (IM) is an approach that offers a paradigm for doing so. It combines the best of both worlds (biomedicine and T&CM), based on evidence for efficacy and safety, adopting a holistic personalized approach, focused on health. In the last decades academic health centers are increasingly supportive of IM, as evidenced by the foundation of national academic consortia for integrative medicine in Brazil (2017), the Netherlands (2018), and Germany (2024) besides the pioneering American consortium (1998). However, the integration process is slow and sometimes met with criticism and even hostility. The WHO T&CM strategies (2002–2005 and 2014–2023) have provided incipient guidance on the integration process, but several challenges are yet to be addressed. This policy review proposes several possible solutions, including the establishment of a global matrix of academic consortia for IM, to update and extend the WHO T&CM strategy, that is currently under review.en_US
dc.identifier.citationHoenders, Ghelman, Portella, Simmons, Locke, Cramer, Gallego-Perez, Jong. A review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and health. Frontiers in medicine. 2024;11
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2283429
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fmed.2024.1395698
dc.identifier.issn2296-858X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/35273
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaen_US
dc.relation.journalFrontiers in medicine
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleA review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and healthen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)