Barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in Australian complementary medicine practice: a cross-sectional study.

Q2 Medicine
Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-29 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1515/jcim-2025-0126
Matthew J Leach
{"title":"Barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in Australian complementary medicine practice: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Matthew J Leach","doi":"10.1515/jcim-2025-0126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite the strong impetus for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) clinicians to engage with research evidence, the enablers and barriers to evidence implementation for most CIM disciplines remain poorly understood. Identifying these determinants represents a critical first step to facilitating the uptake of research evidence in CIM practice, which this study aimed to examine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study set-out to examine the enablers and barriers to evidence implementation across nine Australian CIM disciplines. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item online Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two-hundred-and-three CIM practitioners completed the survey (78 % female; 65 % aged 40-59 years). CIM practitioner engagement in evidence implementation was at a low-moderate level. Attitude did not pose as a barrier, with most practitioners reporting a predominantly positive attitude toward evidence implementation. Similarly, education was not a major barrier, with most practitioners self-reporting a moderately-high skill level across 13 evidence implementation-related activities. The only factors largely reported as moderate or major barriers to evidence implementation were lack of clinical evidence in CIM, and lack of time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study offers important insights into the barriers and enablers of evidence implementation within CIM disciplines. While practitioners generally held positive attitudes toward EI, utilisation of evidence-based practices remained low, with structural challenges (i.e. evidence and time) the prevailing issue of concern. Potential solutions, such as decision-support systems and targeted education initiatives, warrant further investigation to ensure their feasibility and effectiveness in enhancing evidence-based practice, improving healthcare efficiency, and optimising patient outcomes in CIM.</p>","PeriodicalId":15556,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"512-521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2025-0126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the strong impetus for complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) clinicians to engage with research evidence, the enablers and barriers to evidence implementation for most CIM disciplines remain poorly understood. Identifying these determinants represents a critical first step to facilitating the uptake of research evidence in CIM practice, which this study aimed to examine.

Methods: This cross-sectional study set-out to examine the enablers and barriers to evidence implementation across nine Australian CIM disciplines. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item online Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE).

Results: Two-hundred-and-three CIM practitioners completed the survey (78 % female; 65 % aged 40-59 years). CIM practitioner engagement in evidence implementation was at a low-moderate level. Attitude did not pose as a barrier, with most practitioners reporting a predominantly positive attitude toward evidence implementation. Similarly, education was not a major barrier, with most practitioners self-reporting a moderately-high skill level across 13 evidence implementation-related activities. The only factors largely reported as moderate or major barriers to evidence implementation were lack of clinical evidence in CIM, and lack of time.

Conclusions: This study offers important insights into the barriers and enablers of evidence implementation within CIM disciplines. While practitioners generally held positive attitudes toward EI, utilisation of evidence-based practices remained low, with structural challenges (i.e. evidence and time) the prevailing issue of concern. Potential solutions, such as decision-support systems and targeted education initiatives, warrant further investigation to ensure their feasibility and effectiveness in enhancing evidence-based practice, improving healthcare efficiency, and optimising patient outcomes in CIM.

澳大利亚补充医学实践中证据实施的障碍和推动因素:一项横断面研究。
目标:尽管补充和综合医学(CIM)临床医生参与研究证据的动力很强,但大多数CIM学科实施证据的促成因素和障碍仍然知之甚少。确定这些决定因素是促进在CIM实践中吸收研究证据的关键的第一步,这是本研究的目的。方法:本横断面研究旨在检查九个澳大利亚CIM学科中证据实施的推动因素和障碍。参与者被邀请完成84项在线循证实践态度和利用调查(EBASE)。结果:203名CIM从业人员完成了调查(78% %为女性;65岁 %年龄40-59岁)。CIM从业人员在证据实施中的参与度处于中低水平。态度没有构成障碍,大多数从业人员报告对证据实施的主要积极态度。同样,教育不是主要障碍,大多数从业人员在13项与证据实施相关的活动中自我报告了中等高的技能水平。唯一被广泛报道为中度或主要证据实施障碍的因素是缺乏CIM的临床证据和缺乏时间。结论:本研究对CIM学科中证据实施的障碍和促成因素提供了重要的见解。虽然从业者普遍对EI持积极态度,但基于证据的实践的利用率仍然很低,结构性挑战(即证据和时间)是普遍关注的问题。潜在的解决方案,如决策支持系统和有针对性的教育计划,需要进一步调查,以确保其在加强循证实践、提高医疗保健效率和优化CIM患者结果方面的可行性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine
Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine (JCIM) focuses on evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of complementary medical (CM) whole systems, practices, interventions and natural health products, including herbal and traditional medicines. The journal is edited by Ed Lui of the University of Western Ontario. Topics: -Quality, efficacy, and safety of natural health products, dietary supplements, traditional medicines and their synthetic duplicates -Efficacy and safety of complementary therapies -Evidence-based medicine and practice, including evidence of traditional use -Curriculum development, educational system and competency of complementary health programs -Methodologies on research and evaluation of traditional medicines and herbal products -Integrative medicine: basic and clinical research and practice -Innovation in CAM Curriculum -Educational Material Design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信