Search

PurposeTo explore the professional interface between health promotion (HP) and complementary and alternative medicine.Design/methodology/approachA discussion paper, based on qualitative research involving in‐depth interviews with 52 participants from either side of the interface.FindingsThe current interface is predominantly limited to information exchange but there are innovative examples of partnership working on both sides. Key determinants of future collaboration include: the changing nature of both HP and complementary medicine; the place of science and biomedicine; the role of the individual; and perceptions of health, holism and spirituality. There is a perceived need for professional training and development in the area.Research limitations/implicationsThe discussion presented is based on a small scale, qualitative study and further research is needed to explore the issues raised.Practical implicationsOne‐third of the public in the UK now use complementary medicine and this paper explores ways in which HP may respond to this development.Originality/valueThe paper makes an important contribution to an area where there has so far been little professional debate.

Over the past two decades, researchers have successfully accumulated lots of data pointing to a salutary impact of religious involvement. But progress in the religion and health field has been inhibited by the relative lack of attention to important conceptual and theoretical issues. This paper asserts that until we focus as much on the latter as on the former, this field will remain marginalized and thus ineffective in contributing to understandings of the determinants of health and healing. Careful attention to the how and why of a religion-health connection is imperative for bringing this research into the mainstream of biomedicine.

This paper gives the results of one of the first studies of non-biomedical health care services in the State of Morelos, Mexico. The socio-cultural matrix of the population of Morelos has attracted many practitioners of medical models which have no foundation in the rationale of the biomedical-scientific model. There is a considerable variety of non-biomedical therapists in the area of study which may be categorised in three groups: (a) traditional medicine (b) alternative medicine, and (c) faith healing. There are marked differences regarding the academic background of practitioners, the reasons why they engage in their practice, the types of financial strategies they use to provide care, the creation and utilisation of therapist networks, and, finally, in the type of population for whom they provide care. We strongly recommend further research on non-biomedical health care models in the state and in Mexico, since the importance of these models is growing as a result of the increasing demand for health care by a diversity of population groups.