How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme

Sibbritt, David; Kaye, Miranda; Millbank, Jenni; Stuhmcke, Anita; Wardle, Jon; Karpin, Isabel

doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2017.12.012

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some jurisdictions have applied regulatory impact assessment processes to inform decisions about whether and how to regulate these occupations [ 59 , 291 – 293 ]. These studies suggest the risk profile of some T&CM occupations warrants the level of public protection that statutory registration affords [ 6 , 24 , 263 , 291 , 292 , 294 – 298 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Leslie,

Bourgeault,

Carlton

et al. 2023

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability, while promoting patient safety. This review aimed to identify evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR to inform policy decisions. Methods We conducted an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were systematically searched, with data extracted and synthesized based on a modified Donabedian framework. Findings This large-scale review synthesized evidence from a range of academic (n = 410) and grey literature (n = 426) relevant to HPR. We identified key themes and findings for a series of HPR topics organized according to our structures–processes–outcomes conceptual framework. Governance reforms in HPR are shifting towards multi-profession regulators, enhanced accountability, and risk-based approaches; however, comparisons between HPR models were complicated by a lack of a standardized HPR typology. HPR can support government workforce strategies, despite persisting challenges in cross-border recognition of qualifications and portability of registration. Scope of practice reform adapted to modern health systems can improve access and quality. Alternatives to statutory registration for lower-risk health occupations can improve services and protect the public, while standardized evaluation frameworks can aid regulatory strengthening. Knowledge gaps remain around the outcomes and effectiveness of HPR processes, including continuing professional development models, national licensing examinations, accreditation of health practitioner education programs, mandatory reporting obligations, remediation programs, and statutory registration of traditional and complementary medicine practitioners. Conclusion We identified key themes, issues, and evidence gaps valuable for governments, regulators, and health system leaders. We also identified evidence base limitations that warrant caution when interpreting and generalizing the results across jurisdictions and professions. Themes and findings reflect interests and concerns in high-income Anglophone countries where most literature originated. Most studies were descriptive, resulting in a low certainty of evidence. To inform regulatory design and reform, research funders and governments should prioritize evidence on regulatory outcomes, including innovative approaches we identified in our review. Additionally, a systematic approach is needed to track and evaluate the impact of regulatory interventions and innovations on achieving health workforce and health systems goals.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Leslie,

Bourgeault,

Carlton

et al. 2023

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When regulations of CM are informed by practice (for example, national registration which relies on a system of peer-monitoring), regulation is highly responsive and effective, and in many cases more effective at its goals of protecting the public than many conventional medicine regulations. 20 , 21 Regulatory and legislative mechanisms are less effective, and create more regulatory gaps, when they are not specifically focused or informed by CM practice. 9 It is therefore imperative that researchers take a more active role in prioritising measurement and examination of CM practice – as well as its policy and public health implications – to inform evidence-based regulatory and legislative developments related to the growing role of CM in modern healthcare.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Regulation of the Complementary Health Sector: General Public’s Knowledge of Complementary Medicine-Related Quality Assurance and Consumer Protection

Sibbritt

Peng

Wardle

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Complementary medicine (CM) use is a ubiquitous aspect of an increasingly consumer-driven model of healthcare delivery and plays an increasingly prominent role in the Australian health sector. Yet there is limited empirical research investigating the quality and integrity of protections for consumers in Australia. The aim of this study is to help address this gap in knowledge by exploring how members of the public engage with protection mechanisms related to CM use. Methods: This study utilised a cross-sectional online survey to recruit a sample of 1132 Australian adults aged 18 and over. Purposive convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from an existing database of Australian adults who had expressed interest in participating in research. Results: The majority of the participants (64.0%) had visited a CM practitioner in their lifetime. However, a minority of participants (36.9%) indicated they would feel confident in knowing where to complain if something went wrong with the treatment they received from a CM practitioner. Most participants (74.7%) had used a CM product in their lifetime. Specifically, 32.3% had 'ever' used an herbal product and 69.9% had 'ever' used a nutritional supplement. However, a minority of participants (32.7%) indicated they would feel confident knowing where to complain if something went wrong with a herbal or nutritional supplement they used. Most participants indicated a lack of knowledge about how CM practitioners and CM products are regulated in Australia. Conclusion:The findings of this study clearly highlight a concerning lack of knowledge by CM patients and consumers regarding the regulation of CM in Australia. From a policy perspective, it is necessary to seek proactive approaches that target complaint-related knowledge of the CM patients and consumers through education and advocacy efforts.

show abstract

“…Some literature examined the economic impacts of occupational licensing in general (56,57,324-326) and evaluated the effectiveness of a licensing law or the overall performance of a regulator or regulatory system (288, 291,295,[327][328][329]. It is di cult to draw conclusions from these studies given the diversity of topics covered, though ndings often included calls for stronger regulation, expansion of statutory registration to additional occupational groups, and greater accountability to operate in the public interest.…”

Section: Impacts Of Regulation On Health Workforce and Health System ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Design, operation and strengthening of health practitioner regulation systems: A rapid integrative review

Leslie

Bourgeault

Carlton

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In addition to promoting patient safety, health practitioner regulation (HPR) systems are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in supporting health workforce availability, accessibility, quality, and sustainability. This review aimed to identify the evidence on the design, delivery and effectiveness of HPR systems to inform policy decisions by policymakers and regulators. Methods: A rapid review approach was adopted to conduct an integrative analysis of literature published between 2010 and 2021. Fourteen databases were searched according to a standardized strategy. Data were extracted and synthesized through an integrative approach and categorized according to a modified Donabedian framework. Results We identified 410 academic and 426 grey literature sources. Key themes included HPR structures (regulatory governance systems, regulatory institutions, and system linkages), processes (registration and monitoring of continuing competence of practitioners, accreditation of entry-to-practice education programs, regulating scopes of practice, managing complaints and discipline, and regulating traditional and complementary medicine) and outcomes (impact of HPR structures and processes on health system and workforce outcomes). More evidence was found on HPR structures and processes than outcomes, though over 99% of studies were descriptive (and evidence, accordingly, of very low certainty). Synthesis was constrained by the lack of common terminology. Discussion: Trends on regulatory structures and processes emerged from this analysis. The evidence base limitations, particularly on HPR outcomes, warrant caution in the interpretation, generalizability, and applicability of these findings. Standardized terminology and more evidence on regulatory outcomes (on both workforce and health systems) could inform decisions on regulatory design and implementation.

show abstract

How are complementary health professions regulated in Australia? An examination of complementary health professions in the national registration and accreditation scheme

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review

The Regulation of the Complementary Health Sector: General Public’s Knowledge of Complementary Medicine-Related Quality Assurance and Consumer Protection

Design, operation and strengthening of health practitioner regulation systems: A rapid integrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About