{"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.
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