# data[].attributes.body
Alternative Methods of Therapy for Children

# data[].attributes.headline
STEP 1: Define Problem or State Research Question 

# data[].attributes.subject
STEP 1: Define Problem or State Research Question 

# data[].attributes.body
Many children of all ages cope with various mental health issues, and go about seeking treatment for them. These kinds of treatment can come about in many different forms, all based off of the personal needs of each individual. However, certain kinds of treatment can have a plethora of negative side effects. These negative side effects can make catering to the personal needs of an individual even more challenging, and can lead to hardships that are not necessarily needed. I believe that more holistic and alternative methods of therapy should be used for children of all ages who struggle with mental health issues. I believe holistic/alternative methods of therapy are needed because they would provide healthier treatment options to help children cope with mental health issues, as well as allow the parents to choose between more traditional methods of therapy versus alternative methods of therapy, even if they are off-putting at first. In order to provide these methods of therapy, I personally believe there would have to be a lot of education involved, as well as making the information more understandable to many individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
An interdisciplinary approach I feel would work well for providing alternative therapy methods to children of all ages would require more literate information and education. All of this information would be transformed through making it more comprehendable to all individuals. This would heavily involve Family and Community Literacy. The information parents should be provided with involve different kinds of holistic/alternative therapy methods that their child can receive, the more traditional kinds of therapy, and the pros and cons of holistic and non-holistic therapy methods. The parents should also be provided more information in the form of scientific evidence to help them make an even better decision as to which route they would prefer to take. Once all of this information is made to be more easily understood, it would then require educating the public. This again would involve Family and Community Literacy, but it would also involve Education, Science, and Counseling. If these various disciplines were to be combined, there could be a large turnaround in the parents’ decision-making, and could help the children steer clear of negative side effects produced by non-holistic therapy methods. This could also help more parents, and individuals in general, see that these alternative therapy methods are nothing to be afraid of, and that they are just another way of helping those with mental health issues. I believe no single discipline has been able to solve this problem because of the way the information revolving around this issue has been shown to the public. The information has not been able to properly be broken down for the vast majority, the individuals have not been properly educated about therapy methods from both sides, as well as scientific evidence for both, and there are negative stigmas surrounding holistic/alternative therapies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pan and all of the other authors of Article 1 wrote from the discipline of Medical Science. Their point of view states that the use of CAM therapies, if integrated with more traditional medicine, will benefit the greater good of humanity. However, they had some bias within their article, which stated that the current healthcare system does not utilize alternative medicine as much as it could. This skews their article to be more pro-alternative therapies. Article 2, written by Kemper and from the discipline of Medical Science, stated that pediatricians need to be more aware and able to answer questions for families who are looking for alternative therapy methods. There was no bias detected in this article. Article 3, written by Lamarine, and written from the disciplines of Education/Public Health, believed that harm can come from alternative medicine/therapies since there is a lack of scientific evidence that has been shared with consumers. The bias I detected in this article was his belief in harm from the alternative medicine/therapies. This skews the article to appear more anti-alternative therapies. Article 4, written by Buehler and from the discipline of Medical Science, believes that if physicians become as informed about alternative medicine/therapies as they are about traditional medicine, they can help to better the lives of their patients. No bias was detected in this article. The last article, 5, was written by Dokken and Sydnor-Greenberg. It was written from the discipline of Education. They speak about physicians again being an important player when it comes to the parents choosing therapy methods for their children, and how the physicians should encourage conversation about these alternative therapies/medicines. There was no bias detected here. There are definitely many comparisons among these articles. One comparison I found among all of the articles is that they all are looking to better inform the families who are looking into CAM therapies, and looking for the best ways to spread the information about CAM therapies. Another comparison I saw was between Article 2, 4, and 5. This comparison was that the physicians need to become more knowledgeable about CAM therapies, and need to have this information in order to help families to the best of their ability. One other big comparison I found in articles 2 and 3 was that they believe that there should be more scientific evidence to back up the claims of CAM therapies. There were also more obvious comparisons, such as majority of the authors writing from a Medical Science or Education discipline. There were a couple major contrasts I found throughout the articles. One came from Article 3, who believes that alternative medicine/therapies can be harmful, whereas all of the other articles do not mention that they could be harmful. The other contrast I found involved Article 1. This stated that the healthcare system needs a complete revolution in order to integrate traditional and alternative medicine. However, the other articles only indicate subtle changes. The insights from the various articles, ranging across disciplines such as Education, Medical Science, general Science, and Literacy, are interconnected because they are all striving for a few main goals.     

# data[].attributes.subject
Pan and all of the other authors of Article 1 wrote from the discipline of Medical Science. Their point of view states that the use of CAM therapies, if integrated with more traditional medicine, will benefit the greater good of humanity. However, they had some bias within their article, which stated that the current healthcare system does not utilize alternative medicine as much as it could. This skews their article to be more pro-alternative therapies. Article 2, written by Kemper and from the discipline of Medical Science, stated that pediatricians need to be more aware and able to answer questions for families who are looking for alternative therapy methods. There was no bias detected in this article. Article 3, written by Lamarine, and written from the disciplines of Education/Public Health, believed that harm can come from alternative medicine/therapies since there is a lack of scientific evidence that has been shared with consumers. The bias I detected in this article was his belief in harm from the alternative medicine/therapies. This skews the article to appear more anti-alternative therapies. Article 4, written by Buehler and from the discipline of Medical Science, believes that if physicians become as informed about alternative medicine/therapies as they are about traditional medicine, they can help to better the lives of their patients. No bias was detected in this article. The last article, 5, was written by Dokken and Sydnor-Greenberg. It was written from the discipline of Education. They speak about physicians again being an important player when it comes to the parents choosing therapy methods for their children, and how the physicians should encourage conversation about these alternative therapies/medicines. There was no bias detected here. There are definitely many comparisons among these articles. One comparison I found among all of the articles is that they all are looking to better inform the families who are looking into CAM therapies, and looking for the best ways to spread the information about CAM therapies. Another comparison I saw was between Article 2, 4, and 5. This comparison was that the physicians need to become more knowledgeable about CAM therapies, and need to have this information in order to help families to the best of their ability. One other big comparison I found in articles 2 and 3 was that they believe that there should be more scientific evidence to back up the claims of CAM therapies. There were also more obvious comparisons, such as majority of the authors writing from a Medical Science or Education discipline. There were a couple major contrasts I found throughout the articles. One came from Article 3, who believes that alternative medicine/therapies can be harmful, whereas all of the other articles do not mention that they could be harmful. The other contrast I found involved Article 1. This stated that the healthcare system needs a complete revolution in order to integrate traditional and alternative medicine. However, the other articles only indicate subtle changes. The insights from the various articles, ranging across disciplines such as Education, Medical Science, general Science, and Literacy, are interconnected because they are all striving for a few main goals.     

# data[].attributes.body
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Zl-v8nU5-BOD-c35_YlfJ_AqPObWQtbF