Stakeholder Attitudes to the Regulation of Traditional and Complementary Medicine Professions: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Hum Resour Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Health Services

Date 2021 Mar 30

PMID 33781297

Citations 10

Authors

Jenny Care

Amie Steel

Jon Wardle

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There has been a considerable increase in the number of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) practitioners over the past 20 years and in some jurisdictions are estimated to outnumber general practitioners. Despite this globally significant role, it is apparent that worldwide not all T&CM professions operate under adequate accountability and regulatory oversight for maintaining public protection. To date there has been no published systematic examination of stakeholder opinions regarding regulated and unregulated T&CM occupations. In response, this review aims to investigate, describe, and analyse attitudes held by a range of stakeholder groups towards the regulation of T&CM professions.

Methods: A database search of AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted for original research published between 2000 and 2020 on stakeholder opinions regarding the regulation of T&CM professions.

Results: Sixty studies across 15 countries reported on the views of six health care stakeholder groups: consumers, T&CM practitioners, conventional medicine practitioners, professional associations, education providers, and policy-makers. Across all stakeholder groups there was between 15% and 95% (median 61%) support for, and 1% to 57% (median 14%) opposition to the regulation of various T&CM professions. The main reasons for supporting regulation included providing greater public protection, raising training and practice standards, establishing title protection, and gaining acceptance from conventional medicine providers. Concerns regarding regulation included potential restrictions to practice, misappropriation of practice, and medical oversight of T&CM practitioners. Few studies canvassed the views of professional associations (n = 6), education providers (n = 2), and policy-makers (n = 2).

Conclusions: There appears to be broad support for the regulation of T&CM professions, although there was wide variation in attitudes as to how this should be applied. Further research, with a particular focus on policy-makers, education providers, and professional associations, is critical to inform appropriate health policy and practice recommendations relating to T&CM professional regulation across jurisdictions. Systematic review registration: the a priori protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO and is available at: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42020198767 .

Citing Articles

A review of the WHO strategy on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine from the perspective of academic consortia for integrative medicine and health.

Hoenders R, Ghelman R, Portella C, Simmons S, Locke A, Cramer H Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1395698.

PMID: 38933107 PMC: 11201178. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1395698.

Patient experiences of information-sharing and patient-centred care across the broad landscape of primary care practice and provision: a nationally representative survey of Australian adults.

Steel A, Foley H, Graham K, Harnett J, Adams J BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):151.

PMID: 38704562 PMC: 11070095. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02359-8.

An Exploratory Study into the Backgrounds and Perspectives of Equine-Assisted Service Practitioners.

Seery R, Wells D Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(2).

PMID: 38275806 PMC: 10812823. DOI: 10.3390/ani14020347.

Traditional, complementary and integrative healthcare: global stakeholder perspective on WHO's current and future strategy.

von Schoen-Angerer T, Manchanda R, Lloyd I, Wardle J, Szoke J, Benevides I BMJ Glob Health. 2023; 8(12).

PMID: 38050407 PMC: 10693890. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013150.

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review.

Leslie K, Bourgeault I, Carlton A, Balasubramanian M, Mirshahi R, Short S Hum Resour Health. 2023; 21(1):72.

PMID: 37667368 PMC: 10478314. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-023-00848-y.

References

Cooper K, Harris P, Relton C, Thomas K . Prevalence of visits to five types of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners by the general population: a systematic review. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2013; 19(4):214-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2013.06.006. View

Frass M, Strassl R, Friehs H, Mullner M, Kundi M, Kaye A . Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J. 2012; 12(1):45-56. PMC: 3307506. View

Harris P, Cooper K, Relton C, Thomas K . Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by the general population: a systematic review and update. Int J Clin Pract. 2012; 66(10):924-39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2012.02945.x. View

Peltzer K, Pengpid S . Prevalence and Determinants of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Provider Use among Adults from 32 Countries. Chin J Integr Med. 2016; 24(8):584-590. DOI: 10.1007/s11655-016-2748-y. View

James P, Wardle J, Steel A, Adams J . Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine use in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2018; 3(5):e000895. PMC: 6231111. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000895. View

Alrowais N, Alyousefi N . The prevalence extent of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among Saudis. Saudi Pharm J. 2017; 25(3):306-318. PMC: 5357106. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2016.09.009. View

Leach M . Profile of the complementary and alternative medicine workforce across Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States and United Kingdom. Complement Ther Med. 2013; 21(4):364-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2013.04.004. View

Wardle J, Sibbritt D, Broom A, Steel A, Adams J . Is Health Practitioner Regulation Keeping Pace with the Changing Practitioner and Health-Care Landscape? An Australian Perspective. Front Public Health. 2016; 4:91. PMC: 4904026. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00091. View

Dunn J, Steel A, Adams J, Lloyd I, De Groot N, Hausser T . Characteristics of global naturopathic education, regulation, and practice frameworks: results from an international survey. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2021; 21(1):67. PMC: 7893718. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-021-03217-1. View

10.

Walt G, Gilson L . Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994; 9(4):353-70. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/9.4.353. View

11.

Shea B, Hamel C, Wells G, Bouter L, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J . AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1013-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. View

12.

Rabin R, SALAMON I, Bleiweis A, Carlin J, AJL S . Metabolism of ethylmalic acids by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biochemistry. 1968; 7(1):377-88. DOI: 10.1021/bi00841a048. View

13.

Zollman C, Vickers A . ABC of complementary medicine. Complementary medicine in conventional practice. BMJ. 1999; 319(7214):901-4. PMC: 1116726. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7214.901. View

14.

Baer H . The sociopolitical status of U.S. naturopathy at the dawn of the 21st century. Med Anthropol Q. 2001; 15(3):329-46. DOI: 10.1525/maq.2001.15.3.329. View

15.

Hollenberg D . Uncharted ground: patterns of professional interaction among complementary/alternative and biomedical practitioners in integrative health care settings. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 62(3):731-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.030. View

16.

Mayberry J . Review: Statutory regulation of invasive complementary therapies, such as hijama and acupuncture, is the only effective way of ensuring both patient safety and good practice. Med Leg J. 2017; 86(1):23-31. DOI: 10.1177/0025817217734482. View

17.

Leach M . Natural, complementary, alternative: which term to use?. Aust J Holist Nurs. 2003; 10(1):46-9. View

18.

Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K . Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3):179-87. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062. View

19.

Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C . Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(9):934-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014. View

20.

Wardle J, Sibbritt D, Adams J . Primary care practitioner perceptions and attitudes of complementary medicine: a content analysis of free-text responses from a survey of non-metropolitan Australian general practitioners. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018; 19(3):246-255. PMC: 6452961. DOI: 10.1017/S1463423617000664. View