Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 279–285 | Cite as

Attitudes to evidence in acupuncture: an interview study

Scientific Contribution
First Online:

Abstract

The use of complementary and alternative medicine is increasing in the Western world. However, there is no clear evidence of effect of alternative therapies. Moreover, there is no consensus between practitioners and researchers as to the right way of assessing the efficacy of alternative therapies. To investigate practitioners’ perspective on evidence and ways of assessing efficacy twelve in-depth interviews were conducted in Denmark with acupuncturists, including physicians practising acupuncture, acupuncturists with a health-related background, and acupuncturists without a health-related background. Two themes predominated the study, first, the interviewees’ general reflections on how it is possible to establish knowledge about an effect of acupuncture; and second the interviewees’ reflections on the use of randomized controlled trials in acupuncture, including obstacles and alternatives to conducting randomized controlled trials. Further, two conceptions of what constitutes evidence were identified: a biomedical conception and an experience-based conception. Most interviewees were sceptical about the use of randomized controlled trials in acupuncture. Two reasons, especially, were given for this scepticism. First, practical and instrumental reasons concerning the specific elements of the randomized controlled trial or relating to limited resources; and second, value-based reasons are concerning the nature of acupuncture. However, the interviewees were really opposed only to a certain kind of randomized controlled trial, the so-called explanatory trial. They would actually welcome a pragmatic trial. The study gives valuable insight into an under explored field and provide a platform for further investigation, and a better informed discussion of the subject.

Keywords

Acupuncture Evidence Evidence-based medicine Qualitative study Randomized controlled trial 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahlin, L. 2007. Krop, Sind-eller Ånd? Alternative behandlere i Danmark. Højbjerg: Forlaget Univers.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, C.A. 2006. The role of evidence in alternative medicine: Contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches. Social Science and Medicine 62: 2646–2657.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgerson, K. 2005. Evidence-based alternative medicine? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48: 4.Google Scholar
  4. Cant, S., and U. Sharma. 1999. A new medical pluralism? Alternative medicine, doctors, patients and the state. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Coffey, A., and P. Atkinson. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data. Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  6. Crabtree, B.F., and W.L. Miller. 1999. Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In Doing qualitative research, 2nd ed, ed. B.F. Crabtree, and W.L. Miller. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, D.M., et al. 1998. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: Results of a follow-up national survey. Journal of Medical Association 280(18): 1569–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekholm, O., et al. 2006. Sundhed og sygelighed i Danmark and udviklingen siden 1987. København: Statens Institut for Folkesundhed.Google Scholar
  9. Ernst, E. 2000. Prevalence of use of complementary/alternative medicine: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78(2): 252–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, R. 2002. Integrating homeopathy and biomedicine: Medical practice and knowledge production among German homeopathic physicians. Sociology of Health and Illness 24(6): 796–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godwin, M., L. Ruhland, I. Casson, et al. 2003. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: The struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Medical Research Methodology 22: 3.Google Scholar
  12. Hufford, D. 2003. Evaluating complementary and alternative medicine: The limits of science and of scientists. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31(2): 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson, S., and G. Scambler. 2007. Perceptions of evidence-based medicine: Traditional acupuncturists in the UK and resistance to biomedical modes of evaluation. Sociology of Health and Illness 29(3): 412–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewith, G., and P. Little. 2007. Randomized Controlled Trials. In Researching health. Qualitative, quanitative and mixed methods, ed. M. Saks, and J. Allsop. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. King, N. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, ed. C. Cassell, and G. Symon. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Morreim, E. 2003. A dose of our own medicine: alternative medicine, conventional medicine and the standards of science. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31(2): 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roland, M., and D. Torgerson. 1998. Understanding controlled trials: What are pragmatic trials? British Medical Journal 316: 285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saks, M. 2002. Orthodox and alternative medicine: Politics, professionalization, and healthcare. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Tilburt, J.C., et al. 2009. Alternative medicine research in clinical practice. Archives of Internal Medicine 169(7): 670–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tonelli, M.R., and T.C. Callahan. 2001. Why alternative medicine cannot be evidence-based? Academic Medicine 76(12): 1213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vickers, A. 2000. Clinical trials of homeopathy and placebo: Analysis of a scientific debate. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 6(1): 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walach, H. 2003. Reinventing the wheel will not make it rounder: Controlled trials of homeopathy reconsidered. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 9(1): 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. White, A. 2002. Acupuncture research methodology. In Clinical research in complementary therapies, ed. G. Lewith, W. Jonas, and H. Walach. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations