Alternative, complementary or concurrent health care? A critical analysis of the use of the concept of complementary therapy.
Alternative, complementary or concurrent health care? A critical analysis of the use of the concept of complementary therapy.
复制标题
替代、补充或并行的医疗保健？
DOI：
10.1054/ctim.2000.0423
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
J. Low
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Low
在本文中，我批判性地解决什么是成为批发采用的概念，补充医学研究人员的分析奠定参与替代疗法。这篇论文是对21名使用和/或实践替代疗法的加拿大人进行的定性研究。我发现只有7名受访者在描述他们使用替代疗法时使用了“补充”一词。在这七个人中，有五个是另类从业者。我讨论的可变性的意义的概念的“补充”，我认为，替代从业者有专业的利益，使用这个概念，以避免出现在与医疗专业人员的竞争，并减少被贴上“庸医”的可能性。最后，我呼吁研究人员在分析个人使用替代和/或其双重使用替代和对抗疗法医疗保健时定义他们的术语。
In this paper I critically address what is becoming the wholesale adoption of the concept of complementary medicine in researchers' analyses of lay participation in alternative therapies. This paper emerged out of a qualitative study of 21 Canadians who use and/or practice alternative therapies. I found that only seven informants used the term 'complementary' in describing their use of alternative therapies. Of those seven who did, five were alternative practitioners. I discuss the variability of meaning of the concept of 'complementary' and I argue that alternative practitioners have a professional interest in using the concept to avoid seeming in competition with medical professionals and to reduce the likelihood of being labelled 'quacks'. I conclude with a plea for researchers to define their terms in analyses of individuals' use of alternative and/or their dual use of alternative and allopathic health care.