What is integrative medicine? Establishing the decision criteria for an operational definition of integrative medicine for general practice health services research in Australia

Background

Operational definitions outline how a conceptual definition will be measured for consistent, reproducible data collection and analysis. This article reports the decision criteria that will be used for an operational definition of integrative medicine (IM) in a secondary analysis of an Australian national survey of general practitioner activity.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team applied an iterative approach, informed by expert knowledge and literature reviews to establish decision criteria for categorizing the terms in the Australian clinical interface terminology of the International Classification of Primary Care, second edition (ICPC-2 PLUS) and the Coding Atlas for Pharmaceutical Substances, according to whether they reflected IM, conventional/mainstream medicine (MM), or both IM and MM (IM/MM).

Results

The final decision criteria categorized all terms for examinations, investigations, advice/counselling, and drugs with synthetic ingredients, and terms for referrals to secondary care services and healthcare practitioners that are not a traditional or complementary medicine practitioner as MM. Terms that could apply to both styles of clinical practice (e.g., preventive health, lifestyle medicine, psychosocial and some drugs with natural ingredients) were categorised as IM/MM. The remaining terms, that mostly reflected the World Health Organization's theoretical definitions of traditional and complementary medicine, were categorized as IM.

Conclusion

Differentiating between integrative and conventional/mainstream medicine in general practice is context specific and not always possible. The category IM/MM proposes integrative medicine as an extension, rather than an alternative. The rationale for the integrative medicine operational definition has relevance for researchers and health services in Australia, and internationally.

Barriers and Facilitators to Integrative Oncology Services in Australia: A Changed Mind Set Required

Objectives: This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to integrative oncology (IO) service provision and access in Australia. Design: The study design was mixed method with two substudies: a cross-sectional national cancer service survey of public and private sectors; and focus group interviews and an online survey of cancer survivors. Triangulation analysis of qualitative and quantitative data was used to identify and interrogate meta-themes. Subjects: The cancer service response rate was 93.2% (n = 275/295); 71/275 (25.8%) provided IO. Thirty-three cancer survivors from Anglo-European, Arabic, Vietnamese, and Chinese backgrounds were interviewed, and 121 survivors answered the online survey. Results: IO gaps were substantial, with no services in many regions and cities; a lack of diversity and availability of therapeutic options, including culturally appropriate services; and a mismatch between the high use of natural health products by survivors and types of IO services provided. Two overlapping meta-themes were identified: "barriers and facilitators" and "peoples and institutions"; each with four subthemes, respectively, "access/provision, affordability/funding, information/evidence, and culture/values" and "cancer survivors, healthcare professionals, organizations, and policies." While affordability/funding was the greatest barrier to survivors and providers, solutions varied (e.g., building a stronger evidence-base, business model advice) and often conflicted (e.g., public verses private sector funding). The most insidious barrier was professional/corporate cultures and values that influenced hospital policies (or lack thereof), conceptions of evidence and the therapeutic alliance. Survivors called for a change of mindset in the culture of medicine and value-based health care. Conclusions: The barriers and facilitators to IO services were more complex than building the evidence-base and demonstrating value to justify funding. To achieve a better alignment of patients' preferences with service provision, providers require more guidance on clinical governance, business models, local service gaps, and interprofessional collaboration. National strategies and funding models are needed to ensure appropriate, equitable IO service provision.