I found the hardest question to answer/rank was the last one about ranking statements about TCM. The reason being that anyone can make claims about their product and say it is based upon TCM.
If TCM was regulated so that only qualified TCM herbalists (is that the correct term?) could dispense TCM remedies then the statements made could be more meaningful.
Currently too much of complementary medicine is total garbage and makes for expensive urine. I’m looking at you vitamin industry. And don’t get me started on homeopathy.
I have not personally used TCM but mainly because I have no way of ascertaining that the person behind the counter is a bonafide TCM specialist unless it is by word of mouth by the right people. I know there is a lot to commend TCM but too many charlatans have made it hard to trust.
Like others here I regard “complementary” medicines as snake oil. And I refuse to give any respect at all to a form of “medicine” which involves killing endangered species such as tigers and rhinos.
Alternative medicines which have been proven to work are just called “medicines”.
@jezz it had slipped my mind, and it shouldn’t have, that some aspects of the broad umbrella of complementary medicine also includes the killing of animals for their parts for some bogus idiotic reasons. Thanks for reminding me.
Something which concerns me about this survey is that it is a self-selected sample. This makes it statistically invalid.
Such a survey may be harmless for light entertainment in the media, but you can’t determine anything at all from the result, other than that these are the answers that those who responded happened to give. It doesn’t appear appropriate for a university study, even at undergraduate level.
I’m also wondering what steps you have taken against being spammed?
Jezz, I agree that our survey uses a self-selected sample of consumers and the results have no external validity. They are only applicable to those who answer. I also agree that the survey could be spammed (&/or taken over by vested interest groups). That has happened recently with an AHPRA Medical Board consultation. But this is often obvious with numerous identical results.
The only way to get external validity from a survey like this is to use a statistically valid, random sample of the population, which regrettably, is far too expensive for a student survey. This has been done in the past by the TGA (but not this year) using a very small set of questions.
Our hope is that the results from our survey, despite their limitations, might convince the TGA to conduct a statistically valid population survey, on a broader range of questions, on an annual basis, as a key performance indicator (KPI) of their efforts to educate consumers about the regulation of therapeutic goods.
Most surveys are questionable.
Those phone surveys on public opinion have a self selecting bias, home not home, mobile or fixed line, participant cares dies not care, caller ID filters, time of day, day of week, postcode, etc
Providing a survey states it’s criteria it’s statistically valid for that sample. There are some very large samples EG Australian national census.
Is how reliably the sample correlates to the population what is being questioned?
Did the survey and was quite confused to see all questions seemingly related to TCM. Having studied nutrition (many years ago) I have always had a healthy (sic) interest in the benefits of a good diet and the addition of vitamin/mineral supplements in times of stress/healing. I put my knowledge of TCM as low because I have only used acupuncture (successfully) and none of the TCM supplements.
No questions on Ayurvedic medicines that the TGA mentions but I know nothing about these either so my confusion is related to how this survey was introduced and I am not sure the responses can correllate to understanding what consumers know about the broader title and maybe should just honestly state TCM knowledge.
The explanatory statement that prefaced the survey stated, ‘The purpose of this research is to gauge Australian Chinese and non-Chinese consumers’ understanding of how complementary medicines and Traditional Chinese Medicines are regulated in Australia. The aim is to determine if the current advisory and warning messages required by the TGA are comprehensible and helpful and if additional educational statements could assist understanding’.
We are especially interested in Traditional Chinese Medicines regulated by the TGA (medicines, not Traditional Chinese Medical practices such as acupuncture) which are regulated by AHPRA.
After the sections on demographics and health seeking behaviour, the main section of the questionnaire section dealt with consumer understanding of medicines regulation and labelling in general. Only the final sections were about TCM.
It was anticipated that non-Chinese Australians might have little understanding or knowledge about TCM but, because these products are now being widely advertised to all Australians, we felt it useful to ask if consumers understood the terminology used. For example, see:
I am fortunate to have had in my family a variety of alternative approaches to treating imbalances and illnesses. My elders were sensible minimalistic users of medicine, in an era of doctors as god, if not holistic gods. As they aged they appreciated that other methods and philosophies were filing the gaps in conventional medicine.
I found many of the comments here reflect an uninformed bias and unsupported hatred of alternative approaches, and a lack of respect for our opportunity for a healthy life. I would prefer a population of better informed, and inquisitive - rather than dogmatic - attitudes to medicine, health maintenance and therapies. We are not here to be rescued, but to flourish. Thanks for the opportunity!
My bias is fairly well informed and I don’t hate anybody. My bias is towards evidence and genuine expertise, people who actually know what they are doing. Doctors and pharmacologists are not gods and they sure are not perfect, as individuals they are fallible as are we all. The methods they use provide better assurance (not perfect, better) than those who do not test the safety or efficacy of their products.
It is fine to be inquisitive and to question. Sadly too often this plea is used as a screen for asking us to throw over one body of material for another. That isn’t questioning. And too often the replacement offers little in the way of evidence and much in the way of promises.
The overthrow of expertise is favoured by both the innocent and not so innocent. The innocent are those looking for solutions in a chaotic world they don’t understand who want to believe that by getting rid of the old guard (that seem to have failed them) it will all be better. They are prepared to put their faith in anybody who will make things better. The not so innocent prey on them for personal gain. This process takes place in many areas of life - medicine is but one.
I don’t have a problem with the origins, the age or the source of ingredients in complementary medicine I have a problem with being asked to take the results on faith. It is the methodology that draws the line between the two systems. If a particular practise of alternative medicine can be shown to work and to be safe then why does it need to be alternative? It should just be medicine. If it cannot be shown to be effective and safe then why do it?
I take issue with suggestion that people here don’t “respect” the chance of a healthy life. On the contrary, everyone here is doing their best to gauge what is and isn’t effective with that goal in mind. The fact that they came to a different conclusion to you doesn’t mean they aren’t looking for the best
I support your desire for a better informed, less dogmatic and more inquisitive population. This needs people to look beyond friend’s recommendations, advertising hype and celebrity endorsement and grapple with the question of what is ‘evidence’ and how best can we decide if a product or treatment is right for us.
As we encourage you to only participate once, multiple attempts have been disabled, however if your previous attempt was incomplete you maybe able to reattempt by clearing browser cache (cookies).
If you are still unable to access the survey, please update the post.
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to participate in the survey and for all the feedback! Your responses will help us to understand your understanding of the regulation of complementary medicines and how it could be improved.
They survey closes tomorrow, so if you haven’t participated or completed your response, please do so: here!
Hi @shuyi.wu. Are you planning to prepare a summary report or article for Choice as I am sure than many Choice and Community members would be interested in a summary of the results.
This statement has proven equally true for me in allopathic medicine. e.g. I was being treated by a leading Endocrinologist (who teaches the topic at university) for my hypothyroid. Despite 3 years of very little improvement and considerably less quality of life for me this evidence based ‘expert’ refused to entertain the possibility that the prescribed medication was not being effective for me. I had done my own research (from scientific backed papers) and requested to be swapped over from the synthetic thyroid hormone to an animal derived thyroid hormone. The very biased response “it is made from pigs” decided my response. Luckily my GP referred me to a more empathic person and after testing it was discovered that I was exceptionally high in RT3 proving my receptors were not taking on board the medicine and creating the roller coaster results. The expert was so entrenched in her belief of superior knowledge there was no room for a patient to offer any input. This is not an isolated case just my own experience. I can fully understand when being asked to just do as you are told and if it is not working it must be your fault - forgetting to take it, not taking it at the right time, taking too much… patients might opt to go a less conventional route probably because they have lost ‘faith’.
Indeed they might. Individual practitioners may make errors or have poor attitudes. This applies to all professions and has little to to with the distinction between conventional medicine and alternative.
The faith I was having the problem with was the system not the individuals. The alternative movement has two areas of faith that bother me; one that it relies very much on tradition rather than evidence and two that while there are genuine practitioners who have the welfare of their clients at heart there are charlatans who do not. The conventional system has methods of removing the incompetent and fraudulent practitioners, the alternative does not.
