Search

To conduct an integrative literature review to reveal any evidence supportive of the integration of traditional therapies for First Nations peoples in Australia within a western healthcare model, and to identify which, if any, of these therapies have been linked to better health outcomes and culturally safe and appropriate care for First Nations peoples. If so, are there indications by First Nations peoples in Australia that these have been effective in providing culturally safe care or the decolonisation of western healthcare practices. Integrative literature review of peer-reviewed literature. Online databases searched included CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect InformitHealth, and ProQuest. Databases were searched for papers with full text available and published in English with no date parameter set. The PRISMA guidelines were used during the literature review and the literature was critiqued using the Critical Appraisal Skills tool. Seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Four articles selected were qualitative, two used a mixed method design, and one used a quantitative method. Six themes arose: (i) bush medicine, (ii) traditional healers, (iii) traditional healing practices, (iv) bush tucker, (v) spiritual healing, and (vi) therapies that connected to cultures such as yarning and storytelling. There is limited literature discussing the use of traditional therapies in Western healthcare settings. A need exists to include traditional therapies within a Western healthcare system. Creating a culturally safer and appropriate healthcare experience for First Nations people in Australia and will contribute to advancement in the decolonisation of current healthcare models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies include a wide range of procedures and products that are often used by cancer patients to directly combat cancer and to protect normal cells from the toxic effects of conventional therapies. Most often, their use is self-prescribed based on a collection of scattered information from websites and advice from relatives or friends. In this paper, we examined the potential known benefits and harms associated with the most commonly used alternative treatments to provide a practical guide for caregivers and patients. CAM is used by about 40% of cancer patients in Western Countries, with peaks of 80% for breast cancer patients. Cancer patients use CAM to boost immune function, to control cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects, and to improve health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and survival. Unfortunately, self-prescription of natural remedies in cancer patients can lead to unexpected toxicities and can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapy. Although CAM usually refers to all the "natural or organic" products/methods that are generally considered less toxic, there are concerns about drug interactions, especially in patients participating in clinical trials with experimental agents. Despite the claims of the promising and potential benefits made by prescribers, many CAMs lack clear scientific evidence of their safety and efficacy. Given the widespread use of CAM—both clearly declared and overt—in this review, we focused on the most important known data on the risk of interactions between biologics and oncology drugs with the goal of opening up CAM in accordance with the meaning of integrative medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]