Advertisement

Foundations of Methodology in Integrative Mental Health Care

  • James H. Lake
Chapter
First Online:
  • 249 Downloads

Abstract

Current research and clinical methodologies in mental health care are reviewed and critiqued. Randomized controlled trials and other quantitative research designs do not adequately address complex synergistic mechanisms involved in many Western medical and CAM interventions. Treatment planning in Western medicine generally overlooks evidence for CAM modalities, and treatment planning in non-Western systems of medicine generally excludes evidence for Western medical approaches. The limitations of evidence-based medicine are discussed. Practice-based evidence is an important concept in personalized medicine that is emerging in response to the limitations of EBM. Novel research methodologies and their potential applications to studies on CAM and integrative modalities are described. Different research questions pertaining to Western medicine, CAM, or integrative medicine call for a variety of research methodologies. The limitations and benefits of different research designs should always guide the choice of study design especially when complex, multilevel interventions are being investigated. Mixed methods research designs that combine quantitative and qualitative research methods may help elucidate complex dynamic interactions between synergistic factors that influence outcomes in response to integrative treatment regimens. Methods for determining outcomes in clinical integrative mental health care are described including measures of cost-effectiveness, cost–utility analysis, and cost–benefit analysis. Finally, recent innovations in expert panels and their implications for more effective, more cost-effective, and more individualized clinical guidelines are discussed.

Keywords

Methodology in integrative mental health care CAM modalities Empirically based, consensus-based, intuitive, and mixed approaches in integrative mental health care Research methodologies in integrative mental health Methodologies in clinical integrative mental health care, measuring outcomes in integrative mental health care 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abbott, R., & Lavretsky, H., (2013, March). Tai Chi and Qigong for the treatment and prevention of mental disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 36(1), 109–119.Google Scholar
  2. Aickin, M. (2002). Beyond randomization. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(6), 765–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aickin, M. (2003). Participant-centered analysis in complementary and alternative medicine comparative trials. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 9(6), 949–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker Bausell, R. (2009, December). Are positive alternative medical therapy trials credible?: Evidence from four high-impact medical journals. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 32(4), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry, C. A. (2006). The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Social Science & Medicine, 62(11), 2646–2657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengston, W. (2004). Methodological difficulties involving control groups in healing research: Parallels between laying on of hands for the treatment of induced mammary cancers in mice to research in homeopathy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(2), 227–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, B. (2016). The patient experience and patient satisfaction: Measurement of a complex dynamic online. Journal of Issues in Nursing, 21(1), 1.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, F., & Holmes, M. (2013). Mixed methods in CAM research: A systematic review of studies published in 2012. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 187365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloom, B. S., Retbi, A., Dahan, S., & Jonsson, E. (2000). Evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caspi, O., & Bell, I. (2004). One size does not fit all: Aptitude x treatment interaction (ATI) as a conceptual framework for complementary and alternative medicine outcome research. Part II: Research designs and their applications. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(4), 698–705. Mary Ann Liebert Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caspi, O., & Burleson, K. O. (2007, Winter). Methodological challenges in meditation research. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 22(3–4), 36–43.Google Scholar
  12. Caspi, O., Millen, C., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Integrity and research: Introducing the concept of dual blindness. How blind are double-blind clinical trials in alternative medicine? Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6(6), 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassidy, C. M. (2002). Commentary on terminology and therapeutic principles: Challenges in classifying complementary and alternative medicine practices. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(6), 893–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Churchill, W. (1999). Implications of evidence based medicine for complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Chinese Medicine, 59, 32–35.Google Scholar
  15. Coates, J. R., & Jobst, K. A. (1998). Integrated healthcare: A way forward for the next five years? A discussion document from the Prince of Wales’s Initiative on Integrated Medicine. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 4(2), 209–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colloca, L., Jonas, W. B., Killen, J., Miller, F. G., & Shurtleff, D. (2014). Reevaluating the placebo effect in medical practice. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(3), 124–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulter, I., Elfenbaum, P., Jain, S., & Jonas, W. (2016). SEaRCH™ expert panel process: Streamlining the link between evidence and practice. BMC Research Notes, 9, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coulter, I. D., Herman, P. M., & Nataraj, S. (2013). Economic analysis of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: Considerations raised by an expert panel. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 25(13), 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Defining and describing complementary and alternative medicine. Panel on Definition and Description, CAM Research Methodology Conference, April 1995. (1997). Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 3(2), 49–57.Google Scholar
  20. Dossey, L. (1995). How should alternative therapies be evaluated? Alternative Therapies, 1(2), 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernst, E. (1998a). Establishing efficacy in chronic stable conditions: Are “N = 1 study” designs or case series useful? Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 5(1), 128–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ernst, E. (1998b). Single-case studies in complementary/alternative medicine research. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 6, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fisher, P., van Haselen, R., Hardy, K., Berkovitz, S., & McCarney, R. (2004). Effectiveness gaps: A new concept for evaluating health service and research needs applied to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(4), 627–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fontanarosa, P., & Lundberg, G. (1998). Alternative medicine meets science. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1618–1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fortin, M., Bamvita, J. M., & Fleury, M. J. (2018). Patient satisfaction with mental health services based on Andersen’s Behavioral Model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 63(2), 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gelenberg, A., Thase, M., Meyer, R., Goodwin, F., Katz, M., Kraemer, H. C., et al. (2008). The history and current state of antidepressant clinical trial design: A call to action for proof-of-concept studies. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69(10), 1513–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray, G. (2004). Concise guide to evidence-based psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Haynes, B. (1999). A warning to complementary medicine practitioners: Get empirical or else. British Medical Journal, 319, 1629–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoenders, R., Appelo, M., & de Jong, J. (2012). Integrative medicine: A bridge between biomedicine and alternative medicine fitting the spirit of the age. Sociology Mind, 2, 441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoenders, H. J., Bos, E. H., de Jong, J. T., & de Jonge, P. (2012). Temporal dynamics of symptom and treatment variables in a lifestyle-oriented approach to anxiety disorder: a single-subject time-series analysis. Psychother Psychosom. 81(4):253–5.Google Scholar
  31. Jakovljevic, M. (2014, March). The placebo-nocebo response: Controversies and challenges from clinical and research perspective. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 24(3), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, P. B., Jensen, L. J., & Brunak, S. (2012). Mining electronic health records: Towards better research applications and clinical care. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(6), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnston, B. C., & Mills, E. (2004). N-of-1 randomized controlled trials: An opportunity for complementary and alternative medicine evaluation. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(6), 979–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonas, W., Crawford, C., Hilton, L., & Elfenbaum, P. (2017). Scientific evaluation and review of claims in health care (SEaRCH): A streamlined, systematic, phased approach for determining “what works” in healthcare. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 23(1), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaptchuk, T. J. (2002). The placebo effect in alternative medicine: Can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance? Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(11), 817–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lake, J. (2001). Qigong. In S. Shannon (Ed.), Complementary and alternative medicine in psychiatry. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Leach, M. J., & Tucker, B. (2017, January–February). Current understandings of the research-practice gap from the viewpoint of complementary medicine academics: A mixed-method investigation. Explore (NY), 13(1), 53–61.Google Scholar
  38. Lin, Y., Zhu, M., & Su, Z. (2015, November). The pursuit of balance: An overview of covariate-adaptive randomization techniques in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45(Pt A), 21–25.Google Scholar
  39. Linde, K. (2000). How to evaluate the effectiveness of complementary therapies. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6(3), 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liverani, A. (2000). Subjective scales for the evaluation of therapeutic effects and their use in complementary medicine. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6(3), 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Long, A. (2002). Outcome measurement in CAM: Unpicking the effects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(6), 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mercer, S. L., De Vinney, B. J., Fine, L. J., Green, L. W., & Dougherty, D. (2007, August). Study designs for effectiveness and translation research identifying trade-offs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2), 139–154.Google Scholar
  43. Morstyn, R. (2013). Escaping the behavioural ‘spin’ of evidence-based psychiatry: Merleau-Ponty’s ontology of truth. Australasian Psychiatry, 21(4), 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murphy, E. (1997). The logic of medicine. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Oh, K., Kim, K. S., Park, J. W., & Kang, J. (2007). Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine. Asian Nursing Research (Korean Society of Nursing Science), 1(3), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pincus, T., & Sokka, T. (2006). Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Nature Clinical Practice Rheumatology, 2(3), 114–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richardson, J. (2002). Evidence-based complementary medicine: Rigor, relevance and the swampy lowlands. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(3), 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shah, N. H. (2013). Mining the ultimate phenome repository. Nature Biotechnology, 31(12), 1095–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, R. (1991). Where is the wisdom? British Medical Journal, 303(6806), 798–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smolders, M., Laurant, M., Verhaak, P., Prins, M., van Marwijk, H., Penninx, B., et al. (2010, March). Which physician and practice characteristics are associated with adherence to evidence-based guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders? Medical Care, 48(3), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tilburt, J. C. (2008, October). Evidence-based medicine beyond the bedside: Keeping an eye on context. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14(5), 721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner, R. N. (1998). A proposal for classifying complementary therapies. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 6, 141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verhoef, M., Casebeer, A., & Hilsdew, R. (2002). Assessing efficacy of complementary medicine: Adding qualitative research methods to the “gold standard”. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(3), 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verhoef, M., Koithan, M., Bell, I. R., Ives, J., & Jonas, W. (2012). Whole complementary and alternative medical systems and complexity: Creating collaborative relationships. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 19(Suppl. 1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vickers, A. (1999). Evidence-based medicine and complementary medicine. ACP Journal Club, 130, A13–A14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vuckovic, N. (2002). Integrating qualitative methods in RCTs: The experience of the Oregon Center for CAM. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(3), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walach, H. (2001). The efficacy paradox in randomized controlled trials of CAM and elsewhere: Beware of the placebo trap. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 7(3), 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walach, H., Falkenberg, T., Fonnebo, V., Lewith, G., & Jonas, W. B. (2006). Circular instead of hierarchical: Methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 29–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White, A., Resch, K., & Ernst, E. (1996). Methods of economic evaluation in complementary medicine. Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 3, 196–203.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, C. M., Skinner, E. H., James, A. M., Cook, J. L., McPhail, S. M., & Haines, T. P. (2016, August 17). Comparative effectiveness research for the clinician researcher: A framework for making a methodological design choice. Trials, 17 (1), 406.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, K., Mills, E. J., Ross, C., & Guyatt, G. (2002). Teaching evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: 4. Appraising the evidence for papers on therapy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 8(5), 673–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, H. L. (2004). Qigong commentary. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(2), 228–230.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Lake
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Integrative MedicineUniversity of Arizona College of MedicineTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options