The effectiveness of integrative healthcare for chronic disease: A systematic review

The past few decades have witnessed a surge in consumer, clinician and academic interest in the field of integrative healthcare (IHC). Yet, there is still uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of IHC for complex, long-term health conditions.

To assess the effectiveness of IHC for the management of any chronic health condition.

Seven databases and four clinical trial registries were searched from inception through to May 2018 for comparative/controlled clinical trials investigating the effectiveness of IHC for any chronic disease, and assessing any outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool.

The search yielded 6,926 results. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had at least three design features that carried an uncertain/high risk of bias. Differences in physiological, psychological and functional outcomes, and quality of life between patients receiving IHC and patients receiving conventional/usual care were varied and inconsistent. Changes in patient satisfaction with care were inconclusive. No studies reported the effectiveness of IHC on workforce- or administration-related parameters. Evidence from one trial suggested IHC may be more cost-effective than conventional care.

The findings indicate some promising effects for the use of IHC to manage chronic disease. However, the uncertain/high risk of bias across multiple domains, diverse and inconsistent findings, and heterogeneity of outcome measures and study populations prevents firm conclusions from being reached. Along with conducting further well-designed, long-term studies in this field, there is a need to ensure interventions closely align with the definition/principles of IHC.