{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019159456118665017, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.086466165413534, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[From medical research to health policy: the case of complementary and alternative medicine].

It would seem that the right way to manage health policy is by basing it on evidence from research according to the Evidence-Based-Medicine (EBM) approach. In the last decades, there have been a number of attempts to plan a health policy with respect to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Israel. Reaching agreements about recognition and regulation of CAM treatments is both lengthy and difficult due to the gap between the desire to base health policy on the best research grounded evidence and the difficulties in obtaining such evidence. In recent years, extensive research has been carried out in an attempt to examine the effects of CAM treatments. Some research has been designed as double-blind randomized controlled trials, while most has involved research types which produce evidence considered less valid. One of the significant reasons for this stems from the very essence of CAM itself, and from the holistic approach at its base. However, despite the difficulties in planning health policy with respect to CAM while lacking satisfactory evidence, it seems unethical to avoid decisions, arguing lack of valid information. Some argue that less evidential research should also be taken into consideration. The contributions of medical research evidence must be understood in a wide and complex context in which judgment and values, understanding of probability and tolerance for uncertainty all play a role. Developments in evidence-based medicine are an aid in making decisions, but not a panacea.