Logo image
Back
Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review

Matthew J. Leach and Yasamin Veziari
Integrative medicine research, Vol.11(4), pp.1-9
12/2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2022.100899
pdf
Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic review1.33 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of record)CC BY-NC-ND V4.0,  Open Access
url
Enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in complementary medicine: A systematic reviewView
Published (Version of record)CC BY-NC-ND V4.0,  Open

Related links

Metrics

185 File views/ downloads
150 Record Views
13 Times Cited - Web of Science

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Abstract

Complementary medicine Evidence translation Evidence-based practice Implementation science Systematic review
Background Despite the push for complementary medicine (CM) practitioners to engage in evidence implementation, and arguments in support of evidence-based practice (EBP), uptake of EBP amongst most CM professions remains low. This review aimed to synthesise the evidence examining the barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM. Methods Any primary study examining enablers and barriers to evidence implementation in CM were eligible for inclusion. Eight databases and search engines were searched for eligible studies. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and authors of included studies were contacted to identify current or unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria. Results Thirty-nine published and unpublished studies were included in this review. The seven published qualitative studies and 25 published quantitative studies were rated as moderate to high quality. Fifty-two distinct barriers and 62 discrete enablers were identified. Reported barriers were predominantly structural (e.g. limited availability of time and clinical evidence) and cognitive (e.g. skills deficits), with relatively fewer studies reporting cultural (e.g. lack of industry support) or attitudinal barriers (e.g. lack of interest in, or relevance to CM). Enablers of evidence implementation largely focussed on improving access to bibliographic databases and evidence reviews, supporting skills acquisition, and cultivating leadership and interprofessional/interagency collaboration. Conclusion The findings of this review highlight the diverse barriers and enablers to evidence implementation in CM that span multiple dimensions. The interplay between these various factors highlights the complexity of evidence implementation, and the need for a targeted multistakeholder, multidimensional solution to optimise evidence-based practice in CM.

Details

Logo image