Almost any acupuncturist will tell you that there are a lot of factors beyond the needles and the acupoints that create an effective acupuncture treatment. The practitioner’s intention, the setting of the clinic and treatment room, the practitioner/patient relationship, and the care and attention placed into the needling all influence the patient’s reaction. I was very excited to come across a study in the journal Chronic Illness from 2008 that may support this idea.
The researches found that patients (who from the UK and Australia) felt like they were receiving “holistic care” when their acupuncture treatments occurred in a clinic, whether private or as part of a larger health care system. Patients whose treatments occurred as part of a research trial setting did not feel like they were receiving holistic care. The study discussed its findings as follows: “The findings suggests that the experience of holistic care, in the sense of `being treated as a whole person’ is dependent on four factors: (a) the therapeutic theory that underpins the treatment; (b) structural factors such as time and setting; (c) the intention of the practitioner; and (d) the intention and needs of the patient.”
This naturally leads me to think about the outcomes of acupuncture research. If people participating in research trials typically do not feel that they are receiving holistic care, and the intention of the practitioners is different than those in a clinical setting, then how can the results of such trials clearly reflect the true outcomes of what people experience everyday at their local acupuncturist’s office? My peers and I have often wondered why acupuncture trials tend to be inconclusive and contradictory. Besides the fact that many of them are poorly written, perhaps the greater problem is that they do not take into account the considerations discussed above. We as practitioners, as well as patients, know that those considerations discussed in the study would change the effectiveness of the treatment as well as the patient’s experience of it.
Find the article authors and abstract Here.
The researches found that patients (who from the UK and Australia) felt like they were receiving “holistic care” when their acupuncture treatments occurred in a clinic, whether private or as part of a larger health care system. Patients whose treatments occurred as part of a research trial setting did not feel like they were receiving holistic care. The study discussed its findings as follows: “The findings suggests that the experience of holistic care, in the sense of `being treated as a whole person’ is dependent on four factors: (a) the therapeutic theory that underpins the treatment; (b) structural factors such as time and setting; (c) the intention of the practitioner; and (d) the intention and needs of the patient.”
This naturally leads me to think about the outcomes of acupuncture research. If people participating in research trials typically do not feel that they are receiving holistic care, and the intention of the practitioners is different than those in a clinical setting, then how can the results of such trials clearly reflect the true outcomes of what people experience everyday at their local acupuncturist’s office? My peers and I have often wondered why acupuncture trials tend to be inconclusive and contradictory. Besides the fact that many of them are poorly written, perhaps the greater problem is that they do not take into account the considerations discussed above. We as practitioners, as well as patients, know that those considerations discussed in the study would change the effectiveness of the treatment as well as the patient’s experience of it.
Find the article authors and abstract Here.