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

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.

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).

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.

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.