Abstract:
The practice of nursing is both scientific and artistic (Chitty, 1997). Nurses strive
to incorporate the latest technologies into their practice while maintaining a caring,
personal, and holistic approach to patient care. Patients depend on their nurses and
healthcare providers to deliver safe and compassionate care. However, with rising
healthcare costs and many chronic diseases still without cures, many people are turning to
nontraditional forms of treatment in the area of complementary and alternative medicine
(CAM) therapies. While some of these treatments have proven beneficial effects, many of
them are yet to receive scientific recognition. Furthermore, some proven therapies may
actually have deleterious effects when combined with traditional western medicine. For
these reasons, nurses need to be knowledgeable about CAM therapies.
There has been little research in the area of nursing education and CAM. This
study sought to identify how nursing programs across the United States integrated these
therapies into their curricula. Nursing program directors, or their designee, completed an
online survey constructed using the five category framework for CAM therapies as
established by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
(NCCAM, 2002). Distribution frequencies, cross tabulations, chi square analyses, and
multivariate logistical regression were analyzed to determine local, regional, and national
trends in CAM integration across the associate, diploma, baccalaureate, and masters
program levels.
There were 1,053 surveys electronically mailed yielding a 22.4% response rate
from 43 states and Puerto Rico. Results indicated the NCCAM categories of
iii
alternative medical systems, mind body interventions, biological, manipulative and body
based, and energy therapies were included in the curricula to a varying extent across all
program levels. For the associate degree programs (n = 133), 68% included CAM content
in the curricula; 57% of the diploma programs (n = 14) 74% of the baccalaureate
programs (n=108)and 55% of the masters programs (n = 58).
The primary reasons for not including CAM content in the curricula were not
enough time (64%), not essential content (27%), limited faculty expertise (64%), and lack
of resources (22%). Masters level programs reported having more nursing faculty (31%)
with specialized credentials in CAM therapies. Nursing programs that were based on a
nursing theorist (39%) had significantly more CAM integrated into their curricula than
those without this foundation. Funding sources, student enrollment size, and community
population did not significantly affect CAM integration. When program directors were
asked if they anticipated making curriculum changes related to CAM therapies, 33% gave
a positive response.
This research is thought to be the first national study to investigate CAM
integration across all nursing program levels in the United States. It can serve as a
foundation for future research studies to determine which CAM therapies are essential for
nursing educational programs, faculty qualifications to teach these therapies, CAM
competencies for program levels, and actions that need to occur for changes to be
implemented.