Consensus Recommendations to NCCIH from Research Faculty in a Transdisciplinary Academic Consortium for Complementary and Integrative Health and Medicine.
Consensus Recommendations to NCCIH from Research Faculty in a Transdisciplinary Academic Consortium for Complementary and Integrative Health and Medicine.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/acm.2014.0295
复制
发表时间：
2015-07
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cramer GD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Menard MB;Weeks J;Anderson B;Meeker W;Calabrese C;O'Bryon D;Cramer GD
工作背景：该评论根据补充和替代医疗保健学术联盟（ACCAHC）的说法，提出了跨许可补充和综合健康（CIH）学科研究投资的最具影响力，共享优先事项。这些因素是：（1）对整个学科的研究;（2）成本;（3）在学科的大学、学院和项目中进行能力建设。研究能力的问题得到了强调。讨论内容：ACCAHC敦促扩大对CIH课程毕业生的研究人员的发展投资，特别是那些与认可的CIH学校持续联系的研究人员。为了提高CIH学科研究人员的能力，我们建议国家补充和综合健康中心（NCCIH）（1）继续并扩大R25赠款，用于CIH学校的循证医疗保健和循证实践教育;（二）通过支持职业发展赠款，限制CIH机构的研究人员流失，这些补助金来自CIH许可领域的临床医生，他们隶属于并致力于继续在经认证的CIH学校工作;（3）为已经拥有强大研究基础的CIH机构提供额外的独立赠款，并与适当的国立卫生研究院（NIH）研究所和中心合作，在这些机构中建立基础设施;（四）鼓励向传统中心提供更高比例的赠款，以要求或大力鼓励与CIH机构或CIH研究人员建立伙伴关系（5）资助通过CIH认证学校举办的研究会议、讲习班和专题讨论会，包括那些探索研究整个学科影响的最佳方法的会议、讲习班和专题讨论会;（6）遵循NIH现行的优先考虑新研究人员的政策，我们敦促NCCIH对CIH学术/研究机构的CIH临床研究人员的申请给予边际利益，承认CIH概念需要专业知识才能转化为传统观点。总结：我们赞扬NCCIH以前为支持CIH学科的高质量研究所做的努力。随着NCCIH制定其2016-2020年战略计划，这些建议优先考虑基于整个学科的研究，鼓励收集与成本相关的结果数据，并进一步支持CIH机构内的能力建设，这些建议仍然具有相关性，并且是可以使国家健康受益的资金的战略用途。
Background: This commentary presents the most impactful, shared priorities for research investment across the licensed complementary and integrative health (CIH) disciplines according to the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC). These are (1) research on whole disciplines; (2) costs; and (3) building capacity within the disciplines' universities, colleges, and programs. The issue of research capacity is emphasized. Discussion: ACCAHC urges expansion of investment in the development of researchers who are graduates of CIH programs, particularly those with a continued association with accredited CIH schools. To increase capacity of CIH discipline researchers, we recommend National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to (1) continue and expand R25 grants for education in evidence-based healthcare and evidence-informed practice at CIH schools; (2) work to limit researcher attrition from CIH institutions by supporting career development grants for clinicians from licensed CIH fields who are affiliated with and dedicated to continuing to work in accredited CIH schools; (3) fund additional stand-alone grants to CIH institutions that already have a strong research foundation, and collaborate with appropriate National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and centers to create infrastructure in these institutions; (4) stimulate higher percentages of grants to conventional centers to require or strongly encourage partnership with CIH institutions or CIH researchers based at CIH institutions, or give priority to those that do; (5) fund research conferences, workshops, and symposia developed through accredited CIH schools, including those that explore best methods for studying the impact of whole disciplines; and (6) following the present NIH policy of giving priority to new researchers, we urge NCCIH to give a marginal benefit to grant applications from CIH clinician-researchers at CIH academic/research institutions, to acknowledge that CIH concepts require specialized expertise to translate to conventional perspectives. Summary: We commend NCCIH for its previous efforts to support high-quality research in the CIH disciplines. As NCCIH develops its 2016–2020 strategic plan, these recommendations to prioritize research based on whole disciplines, encourage collection of outcome data related to costs, and further support capacity-building within CIH institutions remain relevant and are a strategic use of funds that can benefit the nation's health.