Integrative medicine (IM), formerly known as "holistic" or "complementary and alternative" medicine, reflects many elements of the One Health movement and philosophy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines One Health as "a collaborative, multi-sectoral, and transdisciplinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—with the goal of achieving optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment."1
| November 3, 2021, marks the sixth annual One Health Day, a global campaign that celebrates and brings attention to the need for a One Health approach to address shared health threats at the human-animal-environment interface |
How IM interfaces with humans, animals, and the environment
Plants play a central role in botanical medicine, a developing methodology in both human and non-human medical care. Scientific study of plants, such as cannabis combines information from historical prescribing practices (ethnopharmacology) and animal, human, and ecological medicine.2 Safeguarding the environment benefits all stakeholders in One Health. IM lessens healthcare's burden on the planet by reducing reliance on pharmaceuticals. This, in turn, lessens the long-lasting impact of drug residues in soil3and water.4
Translational research expands insights into the mechanisms of action of IM and yields new insights into ways to achieve positive results.5 Certain IM assessments, when approached scientifically, have the capacity to improve both diagnostic acumen and treatment outcomes. Properly performed medical acupuncture, for example, calls for attentive myofascial palpation as part of a broader physical evaluation to determine the nature and location of myofascial dysfunction.6Massage, too, requires the therapist to ascertain areas of restriction by means of informed palpation and feedback (verbal or nonverbal) from the patient. Contrast this approach to a clinician's reflexive prescribing of opioids from behind a desk, never touching a patient, and the advantages of IM become even more obvious.
In the United States, integrative veterinary medicine (IVM) established its foothold in the 1970s; its popularity and acceptance have been growing ever since in both small and large animal practice. However, each IM and IVM practice differs in the strength of evidential support, risk of injury, and likelihood of benefit. Furthermore, uncritically extrapolating practices from human to non-human patients (or vice versa) raises the risk of injury and suboptimal results. Thus, one should consider each methodology separately, as outlined below, identifying the pros and cons of treatment, its mechanisms of action, and controversial aspects. In terms of the latter, knowing veterinarians have responsibilities to meet standards of accountability to their patients, clients, public health, and the profession, one might wonder whether human healthcare professionals would need to meet the same standards.
