Australian National Complementary Medicine Workforce Survey: A Profile of Practitioners and Their Practices

Recent years have seen rapid changes to traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) practices in Australia associated with increased interest in TCIM during the COVID-19 pandemic and reorganization of practice delivery methods. This study aimed to update the understanding of the current TCIM workforce in Australia. Representatives of six TCIM professional organizations developed a survey for e-mail distribution to members. The anonymous online Qualtrics survey was based on previous surveys to identify workforce trends over time. Survey data were analyzed descriptively using Qualtrics and STATA statistical software (version 16). Responses were recorded from 1921 participants. Respondents were predominantly female (79.7%); 71.8% were aged over 45 years. Remedial massage therapists represented 32.1% and naturopaths represented 23.7% of respondents. Highest qualifications were diplomas (37.7%), bachelor's degrees (28.9%), and advanced diplomas (21.8%). Metropolitan locations accounted for 68.1% of practices. Solo private practice was the main practice setting (59.8%); 13.8% practiced in group private practice with TCIM practitioners; and 10.6% practiced with allied health practitioners. Approximately three quarters of respondents (73.9%) saw 0-5 new clients per week; 42.2% had 0-5 follow-up consultations per week. Collaboration rates with TCIM practitioners, other non-TCIM practitioners, and general medical practitioners (GPs) were 68.7%, 24.4%, and 9.2%, respectively. A total of 93% did not suspect an adverse event from their treatment in the past year. Businesses of 75.9% of respondents were reportedly affected by the pandemic. Comparisons with previous surveys show ongoing predominance of female practitioners, an aging workforce, a high proportion of remedial massage and naturopathy practitioners, and an increasingly qualified TCIM workforce. There was little change in the very low number of adverse events suspected by practitioners, number of consultations per week, and low levels of income of most TCIM practitioners compared with the average income in Australia. Respondents collaborated at similar rates as in the past; however, more with TCIM practitioners than with GPs.