Practitioners’ Awareness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practices within Interprofessional Healthcare Teams in Institutions

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this research was to explore practitioners' awareness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), broadly, and Music Therapy (MT) activity, specifically, within their healthcare institutions. The goal of this was to better evaluate their level of knowledge and understand their recommending practices of these modalities within their roles as interdisciplinary healthcare team (IDHT) members in those institutions for optimization of patient care decision-making. DESIGN A quantitative, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional research design was used to measure practitioners' awareness of CAM and MT in their healthcare institution utilizing a principal investigator-created valid and reliable tool entitled the "Global Complementary/Alternative and Music Therapy Assessment (GCAMTA). " SETTING/LOCATION Data were collected electronically using various social media platforms and from several professional healthcare associations. SUBJECTS A sample of 499 healthcare practitioners participated. RESULTS Solo/group practitioners of small, private practices revealed high awareness (82-94%) of institutional CAM being provided and recommended as opposed to practitioners in larger institutions. Almost half of practitioners (48%) in larger hospital institutions are unaware if CAM is being recommended to patients. Although practitioners have positive or neutral overall impressions of MT, 83% of practitioners do not recommend MT in their current practice. Results of the Chi-Square Analysis were significant; practitioners in smaller, private practices are more aware of their institutional CAM as opposed to practitioners in larger hospital settings (p<0.00001, α = 0.05, χ2= 67.0531, 37.3433). In institutions providing CAM services, practitioners are highly apt to recommend these services to patients. In institutions not providing CAM services, practitioners may still recommend external CAM services if there is high awareness/knowledge (p<0.00001, α = 0.05, χ2= 229.0602) of CAM. No associations were found between institution type/size and overall impression of MT (p=0.604306, α = 0.05, χ2= 1.0074) or between institution type/size and whether the practitioner recommends MT (p=0.08286, α = 0.05, χ2= 4.9812). CONCLUSION A disconnect exists between practitioners' knowledge and awareness of institutional CAM activities and IDHT utilization/effectiveness of CAM in patient care. The effectiveness is reliant on intra-organizational awareness of CAM activities (e.g. MT). Focus on holistic education early in career and institution-wide educational workshops initiated by knowledgeable healthcare practitioners may prove beneficial in remedying this problem to improve patient outcomes.

Soothe the savage beast: Patient perceptions of the benefits of music therapy in an inpatient rehabilitation facility

“…Specifically, higher scores on the GCAMTA (range: 17-107) indicate a higher favorability toward music as a type of therapy (favorable = ≥80%, total score > 85; neutral = 70%-79.9%, total score 75-85; and unfavorable = <70%, total score < 75). In keeping with prior work utilizing the GCAMTA, 24 favorable and neutral score aggregates were considered as preferable, with the justification that an indifferent or ambivalent response to a potential intervention is less illustrative of a barrier to uptake than a staunchly negative or unfavorable response. Although an aggregate score is not sufficiently sensitive to differentiate between ambivalence (i.e., the presence of both positive and negative feelings) and indifference (i.e., no feelings at all), we believe both serve more as an opportunity for education and exploration than a barrier to uptake.…”

“…To elucidate the potential barriers to uptake, a series of studies by Franco et al, utilizing the Global Complementary/Alternative and Music Therapy Assessment (GCAMTA), assessed physician (MD, DO) and non-physician (e.g., RN, advanced practice providers [APPs]) favorability toward MT. [22][23][24] They found that many practitioners had a high favorability toward MT, yet many hospitals do not provide this treatment as a standard of care for their patients. Part of the issue may be related to the lack of reimbursement/payment to IRFs for this treatment; however, there could also be hesitancy of patients to engage in MT due to a lack of knowledge and awareness of the benefits compared to other more established forms of therapy.…”