Nature As Medicine: Mind, Body, and Soil.

Editor's Note: Debate over the evidence supporting integrative care interventions not infrequently references the challenges funding research on natural agents and practices that are not patentable. The subject of this column goes to the mother of all such interventions, nature herself. Yet in this case, the authors report an awakening of research that affirms nature's power in health and well-being. This is the eighth commentary through JACM's column partnership with the Osher Collaborative for Integrative Medicine through which we seek to stimulate critical conversations via perspectives from the leaders of the Collaborative's seven prominent academically based integrative centers. The author team came together from three of the centers: David Victorson, PhD, at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Christina Luberto, PhD, at the Harvard Medical School, and Karen Koffler, MD, at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. While providing readers an understanding of how to examine nature as medicine, they propose a "goodness of fit" between the precepts of the integrative field and the natural world.-Editor-in-Chief, John Weeks (johnweeks-integrator.com).

Pilot validation of a self-report outcome measure of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed a multidomain, self-report outcome measure relevant to a wide range of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies. We report the results of a pilot study to validate the measure. METHODS: Fifty-two patients (60% female, mean age, 53 years) seeking services from CAM providers completed a battery of measures prior to a scheduled visit. The battery included the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, items from the Brief Pain and Fatigue Inventories, ratings of global quality of life (QOL) and change in physical health, and our pilot measure consisting of six hypothesized subscales (pain, fatigue, physical/functional ability, personal control, existential issues, and general QOL). Internal reliability, item convergence and discrimination, construct, and concurrent validity were assessed. RESULTS: Pilot measure domains appeared to be internally reliable with five of six alpha coefficients exceeding 0.70. Multitrait scaling analyses demonstrated that most items converged on the domains that they were hypothesized to represent, although item discrimination was demonstrated for the pain domain only. Correlations with standardized assessments of pain, fatigue, and global QOL showed evidence of construct validity. All domain scores differentiated patients classified high versus low in global QOL (P < .01) and four (pain, fatigue, physical/functional ability, and general QOL) differentiated patients who perceived recent changes in their physical health (improvement vs decline; P < .05). CONCLUSION: These results provide preliminary psychometric data for a pilot measure of CAM outcomes, though further testing is warranted.

Developing a self-report outcome measure for complementary and alternative medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a pilot measure of subjective outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Current options for assessing subjective outcomes in CAM are either too burdensome or fail to represent diverse outcomes. A single measure specifying common, patient-reported outcomes of CAM would be of value. DESIGN: We conducted a three-phase instrument development study. In phase I, 30 CAM-receiving patients and 12 CAM practitioners completed a battery of standardized measures. Participants identified those standardized items relevant to CAM outcome and suggested additional outcome issues. In phase II, 20 CAM-receiving patients completed a Q-sort to determine which items from phase I were most relevant to CAM outcome. In phase III, five experts reviewed the items from phase II for content validity. SETTING: An integrative medicine clinic at a private, Midwest US hospital. PARTICIPANTS: CAM patients, practitioners, and researchers and an outcomes measurement specialist. RESULTS: In phase I, 30 standardized items were judged relevant to CAM outcome, and 8 additional items were suggested. In phase II, 29 of the 38 phase I items were deemed at least "moderately relevant" to CAM outcome. In phase III, experts added 15 items, dropped 9 items, and altered 3 items. The 35 resulting items were classified into content domains, forming a testable, pilot version of the instrument.