SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2022
Complementary medicine in psychology practice: an analysis of Australian psychology guidelines and a comparison with other psychology associations from English speaking countries.
Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diabetes, lowered mental health functioning and the use of conventional and complementary medicine: results from a secondary analysis of the complementary medicine use, health literacy and disclosure (CAMUHLD) study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Practice recommendations and referrals, perceptions of efficacy and risk, and self-rated knowledge regarding complementary medicine: a survey of Australian psychologists.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- The engagement of psychology with complementary medicine: A critical integrative review.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychologists, and their clients, are engaging with complementary medicine (CM). Increasing evidence for CM approaches, such as improved nutrition and St John's wort, has led to their inclusion in the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders. This research aims to determine in what ways, and to what extent, Australian psychology regulatory bodies and associations consider CM relevant to psychology practice. Specifically, how these regulatory bodies and professional association's ethical and practice guidelines engage with CM.
methodsDocuments from Australian regulatory bodies and professional associations, that relate to the governance or guidance of psychologists' clinical practice, were systematically searched for key terms relating to CM.
resultsThere were no direct references to CM in the 58 ethical and practice guidelines reviewed. There was also no reference to the relevance of CM to ethnocultural groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional healing practices.
conclusionWhile other mental health care disciplines are working toward integrating CM, the discipline of psychology in Australia is not currently engaged in such developments. Given the exponential rise of CM use amongst those with mental health problems, psychology associations should consider developing resources and guidelines to assist psychologists in navigating CM in relation to clinical practice to help minimise risks, such as patient safety associated with concurrent CM use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.