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.

Introduction Many people with mental health problems utilise a range of complementary medicine (CM) practitioners, products, and practices. Psychologists are likely to consult with clients who are seeking and using CM, in some form, as part of their wider mental health treatment. The aim of this research is to determine how much, and in what ways, Australian psychologists recommend CM products and/or practices, and/or initiate referrals to CM practitioners as part of their clinical practice and to explore if these behaviours have any association with the characteristics of the psychologist or their wider practice. Methods Survey data was collected from psychologists in clinical practice who self-selected to participate between February and April 2021. Participation in the study was via an online 79-item questionnaire exploring core aspects of CM engagement in psychology clinical practice. Results Amongst the 202 psychologists who completed the survey, mind/body approaches (90.5%) were the most recommended CM and cultural/spiritual approaches the least recommended CM (7.5%). Participants also reported referring to CM practitioners with naturopaths the most common focus of their referrals (57.9%) and cultural and spiritual practitioners the least common focus of their referrals (6.69%). Our analysis shows the demographic and practice characteristics of a psychologist are generally not predictors of a psychologist’s engagement with CM in their clinical practice. Conclusions Substantial numbers of psychologists recommend CM products and practices and/or refer clients to CM practitioners. Alongside subjecting CM interventions for mental health to an evidence-base assessment, the broader discipline of psychology needs to also consider psychologist engagement with CM in clinical practice in order to help ensure cultural-sensitivity, client safety and client choice.