Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a term often used to describe a range of healthcare practices, which are not generally used in conventional healthcare. Specifically, complementary medicines are treatments that can be used alongside standard medical care and alternative medicine refers to treatments used instead of conventional medical treatments.

The disciplines of medicine and psychology isolated the brain and the body from each other during the 20th Century, leading to healthcare professionals treating them as two separate entities requiring different approaches. However, CAM modalities often consider the complex relationship between the two, and work with both to assist their clients. This emerging area of mind-body therapy and its effectiveness for treating a range of psychological disorders places CAM at the forefront of wellness in the future.

CAM is increasing in popularity and acceptance, among patients and practitioners across a range of healthcare disciplines, including psychology. For example, a nationwide population-based survey conducted by Xue, Zhang, Lin, Da Costa & Story (2007), investigated the use of CAM in Australia and found that 68% of participants had used at least one CAM intervention in the last 12 months.

People may decide to use CAM for a range of reasons including compatibility with individual holistic views of treatment and dissatisfaction with the traditional medical system. However, the application of CAM into modern psychology has received some resistance. If CAM is increasing in popularity and people are experiencing positive effects, why is there such defiance?

The use of CAM in psychology in particular has been criticised for conflicting with psychology’s science-practitioner model, which is the current standard for training professional psychologists in Australia, the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Advocates of the scientist-practitioner model and its science-based perspective argue that CAM lacks sufficient quality evidence-based research. They suggest that CAM is often founded on assumptions about physiological processes (such as concepts of vital energy) that are not verifiable and as such psychologists should reject the use of CAM (Swan, Skarsten, Heesacker & Chambers, 2015). As such, recent research efforts have focused on legitimising the use of CAM in psychology in a way that does not jeopardise the fundamental assumptions of psychology as a discipline (Barnett & Shale, 2012).

Psychology has a history of pushing to align itself with the other ‘pure’ sciences such as physics and biology by placing an emphasis on objective research. In principle, modern psychological research does acknowledge multiple types of evidence and encourages a combination of the best research evidence, clinical expertise, patient characteristics, culture and patient preferences. CAM modalities have been used for thousands of years as forms of traditional healing and have been widely accepted by the general public for treating a range of health conditions. Although the research interest in this area has greatly increased, the scientific evidence for the efficacy of CAM has been limited. As such, consistent with current guidelines for evidence-based healthcare, psychology has been hesitant to adopt such methods.

Despite an objection to CAM being not evidence-based, there are many CAM therapies and modalities that have a growing body of research evidence for use with specific conditions or to enhance health and wellness. The Mainspring Method is informed by evidence available from a range of disciplines and encourages health practitioners to do their own research as to what evidence from a range of sources suggest supports health within the CAM umbrella.

Due to an increased interest in the use of CAM by the public, it is imperative that psychologists are aware of available CAM, its advantages and limitations in order to make informed decisions in relation to their clients needs. This is crucial for the ethical practicing psychologists in order to ensure the best quality care for each individual client.

CAM seems to be increasing in popularity and many patients are seeing positive effects from its use. As such, it is anticipated that applied psychology in the future will include CAM regardless of whether or not practitioners personally offer CAM services. Thus, it is suggested that the profession of psychology teach, research and approach CAM in an unbiased manner. Only time will tell if the scientific world will catch up to what has been practiced in many ways for thousands of years.

 

Written by Jaimi A’court, Bachelor of Psychological Science (Hons) at The University of Adelaide

References:

APA Presidential Task Force. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologists, 61(4), 271-285.

Barnett, J., & Shale, A. (2012). The integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into the practice of psychology: A vision for the future. American Psychologist, 43(6), 576-585.

Clay, R. (2010). More than one way to measure. American Psychological Society, 41(8), 52.

O’Gorman, J. (2001). The scientist-practitioner model and its critics. Australian Psychologist, 36(2), 164-169.

Swan, L., Skarsten, S., Heesacker, M., & Chambers, J. (2015). Why psychologists should reject complementary and alternative medicine: A science-based perspective. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 46(5), 325-339.

Xue, C., Zhang, A., Lin, V., Da Costa, C., & Story, D. (2007). Complementary and alternative medicine use in Australia: A national population-based survey. The Journal Of Alternative And Complementary Medicine, 13(6), 643-650.