China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Neurofeedback in Application to the ADHD Spectrum
Published in Hanno W. Kirk, Restoring the Brain, 2020
There are a few major differences between traditional treatment options and neurofeedback for ADHD. The most important one is the fact that neurofeedback is non-invasive and doesn’t put anything into the system, while medication is invasive and has potentially significant, troublesome, and even lasting side-effects. The other difference is that while medication administration is limited by age, neurofeedback can be done at any age. Last but not least, allopathic medicine will consider the severity of the presenting symptoms when deciding on a treatment plan and a certain dose of medication to be administered. With neurofeedback, the severity of a symptom is not important in establishing how to train that brain. We also have the ability to be very specific in terms of which areas in the brain we target with the training and exactly how to fine-tune the frequency in order to obtain best results. Medication effects wear off in hours, while the changes promoted by neurofeedback can last a lifetime if sufficient training has been done.
Definition of Lifestyle Medicine
Published in James M. Rippe, Lifestyle Medicine, 2019
Allopathic Medicine has been the domain of standard medical education since the early 1900s. An application of the knowledge of normal physiology and pathophysiology, diagnostic acumen of both pathologic patterns and directly measured biologic system disturbance, as well as the application of evidence-based surgical or pharmacologic treatment protocols has been the focus of education and practice. Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and the RCT have become the primary tools for understanding how to treat disease. “Non-drug” therapies have been taught to allopathic physicians as basic to any evidence-based treatment plan, but in practice this frequently consists of simple lip-service instructions to patients that often lack the “art of medicine” necessary to truly address known behavioral aspects of disease.
Safeguarding Musculoskeletal Structures from Food Technology’s Untoward Metabolic Effects
Published in Kohlstadt Ingrid, Cintron Kenneth, Metabolic Therapies in Orthopedics, Second Edition, 2018
The current understanding of metabolism demonstrates that food technologies are medical treatments. However, allopathic medicine tends to categorize these interventions as lifestyle choice and prevention. They maintain that avoidance of the problematic food technologies is within our patients’ control. To what extent does the premise hold true that prescribing willpower is enough to achieve the desired improvement in musculoskeletal conditions? This chapter provides evidence that willpower is seldom enough. Additional support comes from the field of bariatric medicine, where diagnosing and treating the underpinnings of sarcopenic obesity, such as endocrine conditions and sleep apnea, enables patients to then leverage motivation to get the desired musculoskeletal results [34].
Implementation of an Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for Depression Screening of the Adolescent
Published in Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2023
The setting for this quality improvement project included four pediatric primary care offices in a medium-sized regional health system in rural, southern Ohio. The participants are nine PCPs treating adolescent patients, ages 12–18. The practice settings for this project were four rural pediatric primary care offices within a regional Health System. The pediatric primary care offices included one Pediatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP) and eight Pediatricians. The physicians consisted of three Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) and five Doctors of Allopathic Medicine (MD). All primary care providers (PCP) are board certified. All providers (n = 9) voluntarily participated in the education session and completed the questionnaires. There was a total of approximately n = 505 patient visits over this project period.
Training Medical Professionals to Work with Patients with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review
Published in Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 2020
Katherine Ceglio, Mandy J Rispoli, Eric M Flake
Across the studies, five categories of medical personnel participated in training: medical students, medical residents, nursing students, nurses, and physicians. Medical students were trained in 15 different studies (44.1%), 13 of which trained allopathic medicine (MD) students and two of which trained physician assistant students. Twelve studies trained medical residents (35.3%). Four studies trained nursing students (11.8%). Nine studies trained nurses (17.7%), one of which one trained nurse midwives, specifically. Eight studies trained physicians (14.7%), seven of which trained pediatricians while one study did not specify the type of physician. Some studies trained more than one type of medical personnel in their training, so studies were counted within the totals of each type of medical personnel trained. Not surprisingly, classroom training was most commonly applied to students. The remaining training types (online, experiential, and combined) were fairly evenly distributed across students and practicing medical providers. Due to this overlap, it is not possible to distinguish training models that may be more or less effective for medical providers in different stages of their careers. Instead, it appears that the training model likely aligns with existing resources and learning or professional development opportunities.
Rejecting Reality and Substituting One?'s Own; Why Bioethics Should Be Concerned With Medically Unexplained Symptoms
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2018
Mark Henderson Arnold, Ian Kerridge
Allopathic, traditional, and complementary systems of medicine are characterised as much by their similarities as by their differences. Chief among these is the internal “logic” whereby an ontology of disease (which differentiates disease from “non-disease”) provides the basis for diagnosis, therapy, and social status (Eriksen et al. 2013). Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), by their very nature, therefore, challenge the ontology and episteme of medicine. The lack of a tangible explanatory pathology and failure to allign with conventional biomedical taxonomies is particularly problematic for allopathic medicine, which is highly reductionist, committed to positivism, and emphasizes mechanistic reasoning and pathobiological constructions of disease (Eriksen et al. 2013). The result, as O'Leary makes clear, is that MUS are delegitimized and those who suffer from MUS may be stigmatized and abandoned by both the medical systems and by the health care practitioners charged with their care.