Qualitative research explores integration support by primary care providers, indicating patient safety and training as key factors.
Background: Nearly two thirds of Australian adults are estimated to use complementary therapies, including 36% who consult with such providers. Despite this relatively high use, traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) providers and mainstream practitioners rarely collaborate. The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates for integration of T&CM, as appropriate, towards strengthening universal health coverage and people-centred healthcare. This study explored the perspectives of primary care providers on greater integration of T&CM with Australia’s healthcare system. Methods: Guided by a health policy and systems research approach, this qualitative study used purposive and convenience sampling to recruit general practitioners, registrars and practice nurses. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were thematically analysed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Results: The four main themes arising from the 13 interviewees were: (i) exposure to T (ii) perception of safety; (iii) priorities of the healthcare system; and (iv) acceptability. Participants had varying levels of knowledge about T&CM, which influenced attitudes towards T&CM integration. Participants were generally supportive of greater integration of T&CM providers with the health system, but patient safety, practitioner regulation, a robust evidence-base, and adequacy of T&CM provider training were factors shaping their views. Conclusion: Further research with a larger sample and a broader mix of stakeholders is needed to better understand Australians’ appetite for, and the appropriateness of, more formal utilisation and/or integration of T&CM. Making robust evidence for specific T&CM therapies and providers more accessible to established and in-training healthcare professionals may be a pathway for greater understanding of the scope of T&CM practice in Australia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeyasingham et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: