ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2024
Practice recommendations and referrals, perceptions of efficacy and risk, and self-rated knowledge regarding complementary medicine: a survey of Australian psychologists.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Professionals' Attitudes Towards Traditional Healing for Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of meditation use in Australia and New Zealand: results from a nationally representative survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of psychiatry researchers and clinicians: perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany people with mental health problems use a range of complementary medicine (CM), including over the counter products, practices, and utilise the services of CM practitioners. Psychologists are likely to consult with clients using CM, in some form, as part of their broader mental health care. The aim of this research was to determine the number of types of CM products, practices, and practitioners are recommended and/or referred by Australian psychologists as part of their clinical practice, as well as explore the relationship between psychologists' perspectives on the risk and relevance of engaging with CM in psychology.
methodsSurvey data was collected from psychologists in clinical practice who self-selected to participate in the study via an online 79-item questionnaire exploring core aspects of CM engagement in psychology clinical practice.
resultsAmongst the 201 psychologists, 5% reported not recommending any type of CM, with 63% recommending four or more types of CM. Further, 25% had not referred to a CM practitioner, while 33% had referred to four or more types of CM practitioner. Psychologists are recommending and referring to CM even when they perceive their knowledge of CM to be poor, and that engaging with CM was a risk.
conclusionThis study provides insights into psychologist perceptions of CM within psychology practice and how these perceptions are associated with rates of recommending and referring to CM as part of their clinical practice. These findings may inform the development of CM relevant education and guidelines for psychologists.
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.