Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs). DESIGN: Scoping review of SRs. METHODS: We searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data. CONCLUSIONS: Only one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

'Trying to put a square peg into a round hole': a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' views of integrating complementary medicine into primary care for musculoskeletal and mental health comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity of musculoskeletal (MSK) and mental health (MH) problems is common but challenging to treat using conventional approaches. Integration of conventional with complementary approaches (CAM) might help address this challenge. Integration can aim to transform biomedicine into a new health paradigm or to selectively incorporate CAM in addition to conventional care. This study explored professionals' experiences and views of CAM for comorbid patients and the potential for integration into UK primary care. METHODS: We ran focus groups with GPs and CAM practitioners at three sites across England and focus groups and interviews with healthcare commissioners. Topics included experience of co-morbid MSK-MH and CAM/integration, evidence, knowledge and barriers to integration. Sampling was purposive. A framework analysis used frequency, specificity, intensity of data, and disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: We recruited 36 CAM practitioners (4 focus groups), 20 GPs (3 focus groups) and 8 commissioners (1 focus group, 5 interviews). GPs described challenges treating MSK-MH comorbidity and agreed CAM might have a role. Exercise- or self-care-based CAMs were most acceptable to GPs. CAM practitioners were generally pro-integration. A prominent theme was different understandings of health between CAM and general practitioners, which was likely to impede integration. Another concern was that integration might fundamentally change the care provided by both professional groups. For CAM practitioners, NHS structural barriers were a major issue. For GPs, their lack of CAM knowledge and the pressures on general practice were barriers to integration, and some felt integrating CAM was beyond their capabilities. Facilitators of integration were evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness (particularly for CAM practitioners). Governance was the least important barrier for all groups. There was little consensus on the ideal integration model, particularly in terms of financing. Commissioners suggested CAM could be part of social prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: CAM has the potential to help the NHS in treating the burden of MSK-MH comorbidity. Given the challenges of integration, selective incorporation using traditional referral from primary care to CAM may be the most feasible model. However, cost implications would need to be addressed, possibly through models such as social prescribing or an extension of integrated personal commissioning.

Why women stop breastfeeding in the early days.

Increasing breastfeeding prevalence rates has been identified as key to improving health and well being outcomes for mothers and babies. (Dyson et al 2008, Unicef 2013; Renfrew et al 2012a; Renfrew et al 2012b). Within one maternity unit in England, in 2014, 80 per cent of women initiated breastfeeding at birth, but by day 10, only 45 per cent were breastfeeding exclusively, identifying a drop off rate of 35 per cent. As part of achieving the Unicef UK Baby Friendly standards, retrospective audit was undertaken to investigate why women were not continuing to exclusively breastfeed. Findings from the study identified that when a baby received a supplement of formula milk before 72 hours of age, the mother was less likely to be exclusively breastfeeding at 10 days. This was statistically significant (Sharp 2014). An innovation was implemented for some mothers to receive additional one-to-one feeding support in hospital and the community, as a result of which supplementation rates decreased.

The impact of NHS based primary care complementary therapy services on health outcomes and NHS costs: a review of service audits and evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to review evaluations and audits of primary care complementary therapy services to determine the impact of these services on improving health outcomes and reducing NHS costs. Our intention is to help service users, service providers, clinicians and NHS commissioners make informed decisions about the potential of NHS based complementary therapy services. METHODS: We searched for published and unpublished studies of NHS based primary care complementary therapy services located in England and Wales from November 2003 to April 2008. We identified the type of information included in each document and extracted comparable data on health outcomes and NHS costs (e.g. prescriptions and GP consultations). RESULTS: Twenty-one documents for 14 services met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of the studies was poor, so few conclusions can be made. One controlled and eleven uncontrolled studies using SF36 or MYMOP indicated that primary care complementary therapy services had moderate to strong impact on health status scores. Data on the impact of primary care complementary therapy services on NHS costs were scarcer and inconclusive. One controlled study of a medical osteopathy service found that service users did not decrease their use of NHS resources. CONCLUSION: To improve the quality of evaluations, we urge those evaluating complementary therapy services to use standardised health outcome tools, calculate confidence intervals and collect NHS cost data from GP medical records. Further discussion is needed on ways to standardise the collection and reporting of NHS cost data in primary care complementary therapy services evaluations.

Decisions to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by male cancer patients: information-seeking roles and types of evidence used.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is increasingly popular with cancer patients and yet information provision or discussion about CAM by health professionals remains low. Previous research suggests that patients may fear clinicians' 'disapproval' if they raise the subject of CAM, and turn to other sources to acquire information about CAM. However, little empirical research has been conducted into how cancer patients acquire, and, more importantly evaluate CAM information before deciding which CAM therapies to try. METHODS: Qualitative study, comprising semi-structured interviews with 43 male cancer patients of varying ages, cancer type and stage of illness, 34 of whom had used CAM. They were recruited from a range of NHS and non-NHS settings in Bristol, England. RESULTS: As a result of the lack of CAM information from health professionals, men in this study became either 'pro-active seekers' or 'passive recipients' of such information. Their main information resource was the 'lay referral' network of family, friends and acquaintances, especially females. 'Traditional' information sources, including books, magazines, leaflets and the media were popular, more so in fact than the internet. Views on the internet ranged from enthusiasm or healthy scepticism through to caution or disinterest. CAM information was generally regarded as 'empowering' as it broadened treatment and self-care options. A minority of participants were information averse fearing additional choices that might disrupt their fragile ability to cope. There was general consensus that CAM information should be available via the NHS, to give it a 'stamp of approval', which combined with guidance from informed health professionals, could help patients to make 'guided' choices. However, a small minority of these men valued the independence of CAM from the NHS and deliberately sought 'alternative' information sources and treatment options. Men were selective in identifying particular therapies to use and sceptical about others, basing their choices on forms of 'evidence' that were personally meaningful: personal stories of individuals who had been helped by CAM; the long history and enduring popularity of some therapies; the plausibility of the mechanism of action; a belief or trust in individual therapies or their providers; scientific evidence. Scientific evidence ranked low in the men's personal decision-making about CAM, while it was recognised as important for NHS support for CAM. CONCLUSION: These male cancer patients valued the support and guidance of 'trusted individuals' in making choices about CAM. Trusted health professionals could also play a significant role in helping patients to make informed choices. Any such dialogue must, however, acknowledge the different standards of evidence used by patients and clinicians to evaluate the benefits or otherwise of CAM therapies. Such open communication could help to foster an environment of mutual trust where patients are encouraged to discuss their interest in CAM, rather than perpetuate covert, undisclosed use of CAM with its attendant potential hazards.

Expectations of patients and parents of children with asthma regarding access to complementary therapy information and services via the NHS: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the expectations of patients and parents of children with asthma regarding access to complementary therapies via the NHS. METHODS: Fifty semi-structured interviews with adults and parents of children with asthma, from a range of health-care settings, including users and non-users of complementary therapies. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and the data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were using complementary therapies for asthma, six were using complementary therapies for other health problems and 13 were non-users. Various therapies were used for asthma, most commonly homeopathy and breathing techniques, predominantly outside the NHS. Two broad themes emerging from the data were expectations about access to information and knowledge about complementary therapies via NHS health professionals, and expectations regarding access to complementary therapy services via the NHS. As a minimum, the majority of participants wanted NHS health professionals to be more 'open' towards and know more about complementary therapies than their patients - perceived as not currently usual. Most were positive about greater NHS access to complementary therapy services, for enhancing patient choice, improving equality in access for less affluent patients and facilitating patients' self-help. Participants who were highly sceptical about complementary therapies argued that lack of scientific evidence of effectiveness prohibited the need for greater complementary therapy knowledge or service provision within the NHS. Alongside their expectations, patients and parents expressed realistic views about facilitators and barriers to greater access. CONCLUSIONS: While health service planners and providers often express reservations about the value of complementary therapies, it is important to take patients' preferences into account if policy discourses regarding patient-centred care and choice are to be realized in practice.