Complementary medicine in psychology practice: an analysis of Australian psychology guidelines and a comparison with other psychology associations from English speaking countries

Abstract

Background Psychologists, 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. Methods Documents 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. Results There 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. Conclusion While 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.

Practice recommendations and referrals, perceptions of efficacy and risk, and self-rated knowledge regarding complementary medicine: a survey of Australian psychologists

“…Adding to psychologist’s dilemma regarding CM within clinical practice are other findings from the current study, that substantial numbers of psychologists perceive their knowledge of some CM types as fair/poor. This is consistent with Australian and international research that identifies limited guidelines and education for psychologists wishing to engage with CM in clinical practice in a number of jurisdictions [ 24 , 27 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 51 ]. Again, further research is required to tease out and more deeply explore these and competing understandings and explanations around psychologists’ CM engagement.…”

“…Further, some psychologists engaging with CM in their practice complain of a lack of explicit policy and guidelines for the safe integration of CM into psychology practice [ 22 , 24 , 27 ]. Analysis of guidelines from Australian psychology professional associations reveals limited mention of CM, nor how psychologists could safely integrate CM into their practice [ 51 ].…”

Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol

“…22 This is particularly pertinent to CAIM literature, given the interdisciplinary applications of many CAIM therapies. [25][26][27] Bibliometric methodology can be influenced by database changes such as the indexing of new journals or articles. 28 Due to limitations of visualization softwares like VOSviewer, often only either Scopus or Web of Science databases can be searched, which cover most but not all databases.…”

The relationship between psychology practice and complementary medicine in Australia: Psychologists’ demographics and practice characteristics regarding type of engagement across a range of complementary medicine modalities

“…Apart from common legislation around health professionals referring to health professionals (e.g., maintaining client confidentiality) there is no legislation that explicitly discusses the types of referrals psychologists can provide. Perhaps in lieu of CM specific guidelines from psychology associations in Australia [ 51 ], psychologists extend upon GP inclusion of CM to subsequently engage with CM in their own clinical practice with clients. Further research is required to identify what motivates psychologist engagement with CM.…”

“…Similarly, nutritional psychiatry has emerged as a significant paradigm in mental health care [ 27 , 47 , 48 ] and although not traditionally part of psychologists’ tertiary education [ 49 ], psychologists are increasingly engaging with this approach [ 50 ]. There is limited research describing the referral practices of psychologists to CM practitioners, which may be a reflection of limited guidelines for psychologists on how they might engage with CM in their practice [ 51 ].…”