Cargando…
Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine
BACKGROUND: There are no generally accepted standards for evaluation of treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Pattern differentiation and individual treatments are recognized as the most distinguishing features of TCM. Therefore, how practitioners determine curative effects is an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437539/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28521826 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1746-8 |
_version_ | 1783237606456164352 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Yan-Hong Lv, Jing Gao, Wei Li, Jun Fang, Ji-Qian He, Li-Yun Liu, Bao-Yan |
author_facet | Zhang, Yan-Hong Lv, Jing Gao, Wei Li, Jun Fang, Ji-Qian He, Li-Yun Liu, Bao-Yan |
author_sort | Zhang, Yan-Hong |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There are no generally accepted standards for evaluation of treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Pattern differentiation and individual treatments are recognized as the most distinguishing features of TCM. Therefore, how practitioners determine curative effects is an issue worthy of research, though little has been done in this area up to this point. This study examines perceptions of the effectiveness of TCM treatments and the means of evaluating clinical outcomes from the practitioners’ perspective. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: A total of nine TCM practitioners from three university-affiliated hospitals and two scientific institutions participated in the interviews in August 2013. Participants reported evaluation of periodical treatment as an important part of the process of individual treatment based on pattern differentiation. Themes included (1) ways of evaluating treatment outcomes; (2) relationships between treatment outcomes and pathological transformation; and (3) distinguishing manifestations of the healing process from true adverse reactions. These considerations helped determine the optional treatment principles for further follow-up. An additional theme emerged related to the characteristics of diagnosis and treatment in TCM. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals considered all of the following as important ways of evaluating TCM treatment outcomes: patients’ input and subjective experience, physicians’ intake and examination, laboratory tests and medical device measurements. Pathological conditions were determined based on all the above factors, and no single factor determined the effectiveness from the practitioners’ perspectives. If the patients felt no significant beneficial effects, then it was necessary to judge the effectiveness from adverse effect. The follow-up measures were usually based on the previous treatment, and physicians’ satisfaction with each phase of TCM treatment was a significant factor in the process of making further decisions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5437539 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54375392017-05-19 Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine Zhang, Yan-Hong Lv, Jing Gao, Wei Li, Jun Fang, Ji-Qian He, Li-Yun Liu, Bao-Yan BMC Complement Altern Med Research Article BACKGROUND: There are no generally accepted standards for evaluation of treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Pattern differentiation and individual treatments are recognized as the most distinguishing features of TCM. Therefore, how practitioners determine curative effects is an issue worthy of research, though little has been done in this area up to this point. This study examines perceptions of the effectiveness of TCM treatments and the means of evaluating clinical outcomes from the practitioners’ perspective. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: A total of nine TCM practitioners from three university-affiliated hospitals and two scientific institutions participated in the interviews in August 2013. Participants reported evaluation of periodical treatment as an important part of the process of individual treatment based on pattern differentiation. Themes included (1) ways of evaluating treatment outcomes; (2) relationships between treatment outcomes and pathological transformation; and (3) distinguishing manifestations of the healing process from true adverse reactions. These considerations helped determine the optional treatment principles for further follow-up. An additional theme emerged related to the characteristics of diagnosis and treatment in TCM. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals considered all of the following as important ways of evaluating TCM treatment outcomes: patients’ input and subjective experience, physicians’ intake and examination, laboratory tests and medical device measurements. Pathological conditions were determined based on all the above factors, and no single factor determined the effectiveness from the practitioners’ perspectives. If the patients felt no significant beneficial effects, then it was necessary to judge the effectiveness from adverse effect. The follow-up measures were usually based on the previous treatment, and physicians’ satisfaction with each phase of TCM treatment was a significant factor in the process of making further decisions. BioMed Central 2017-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5437539/ /pubmed/28521826 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1746-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhang, Yan-Hong Lv, Jing Gao, Wei Li, Jun Fang, Ji-Qian He, Li-Yun Liu, Bao-Yan Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title | Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title_full | Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title_fullStr | Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title_full_unstemmed | Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title_short | Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine |
title_sort | practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional chinese medicine |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437539/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28521826 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-1746-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangyanhong practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT lvjing practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT gaowei practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT lijun practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT fangjiqian practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT heliyun practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine AT liubaoyan practitionersperspectivesonevaluatingtreatmentoutcomesintraditionalchinesemedicine |