Evidence implementation among complementary medicine practitioners: a meta-summary

To explore the factors impacting evidence implementation in complementary medicine (CM) practice.

MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for cross-sectional studies examining evidence implementation among CM practitioners. Qualitative data from eligible studies were collated and analysed using a meta-summary approach. Data were coded according to the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and translated into barriers and enablers.

Qualitative data were available for 614 participants (from 16 disciplines) across 14 studies. Coding identified 34 themes, with most themes aligning with the Inner Setting (11 themes) and Characteristics of the Intervention (10 themes) domains of the CFIR. The most commonly referenced barriers to evidence implementation were: 'Lack of supportive resources' (Effect size [ES]=33.3%), 'Research misalignment with profession and practice' (ES=14.5%) and 'Lack of access to knowledge and information' (ES=10.5%). The most common enablers were: 'Recognition of a need for change' (ES=8.2%) and 'Perceived adaptability of EBP to the profession' (ES=7.8%).

This research offers new insights into the challenges and opportunities to implementing evidence-based practices in the field of CM. The findings underline the complexity of the phenomenon, and the need for a nuanced, multi-faceted and multi-stakeholder approach to improving evidence implementation in CM.