The prevalence and experience of Australian naturopaths and Western herbalists working within community pharmacies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Naturopaths and Western herbal medicine (WHM) practitioners were surveyed to identify their extent, experience and roles within the community pharmacy setting and to explore their attitudes to integration of complementary medicine (CM) practitioners within the pharmacy setting.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Practising naturopaths and WHM practitioners were invited to participate in an anonymous, self-administered, on-line survey. Participants were recruited using the mailing lists and websites of CM manufacturers and professional associations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>479 practitioners participated. 24% of respondents (n = 111) reported they had worked in community pharmacy, three-quarters for less than 5 years. Whilst in this role 74% conducted specialist CMs sales, 62% short customer consultations, 52% long consultations in a private room and 51% staff education. This was generally described as a positive learning experience and many appreciated the opportunity to utilise their specialist knowledge in the service of both customers and pharmacy staff. 14% (n = 15) did not enjoy the experience of working in pharmacy at all and suggested pharmacist attitude largely influenced whether the experience was positive or not. Few practitioners were satisfied with the remuneration received. 44% of the total sample provided comment on the issue of integration into pharmacy, with the main concern being the perceived incommensurate paradigms of practice between pharmacy and naturopathy. Of the total sample, 38% reported that they would consider working as a practitioner in retail pharmacy in future.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The level of integration of CM into pharmacy is extending beyond the mere stocking of supplements. Naturopaths and Western Herbalists are becoming utilised in pharmacies</p

Complementary versus conventional medicine: Migraine

Each issue, two GPs – one more based in complementary medicine, the other in conventional medicine – look at a typical presentation and detail how they would treat it from each point of view. This month, our two GPs take a look at migraines

Complementary medicines information use and needs of health professionals: General practitioners and pharmacists

There is an increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicines and therapies in Australia and overseas. Many consumers purchase a wide range of complementary medicines (CMs) and consult a wide range of complementary and alternative practitioners including naturopaths, acupuncturists and Chinese herbal medicine practitioners who may also directly supply CMs. In 2003, the Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System was commissioned to report on the status of complementary medicines and therapies in Australia. In the report ‘Complementary Medicines in the Australian Health System’1, the Expert Committee identified a number of concerns and made a series of recommendations to facilitate safe, appropriate and effective use of CMs. One specific concern was the need for consumers and health professionals to have ‘accurate, reliable and independent information’ about CMs and to have appropriate skills to ‘interpret available information’ and ‘discriminate between reliable and unreliable information’ to allow them to make informed decisions about the use of CMs

Two into one won't go: conceptual, clinical, ethical and legal impedimenta to the convergence of CAM and orthodox medicine

The convergence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a prominent feature of healthcare in western countries, but it is currently undertheorised, and its implications have been insufficiently considered. Two models of convergence are described – the totally integrated evidence-based model (TI) and the multicultural-pluralistic model (MP). Both models are being incorporated into general medical practice. Against the background of the reasons for the increasing utilisation of CAM by the public and by general practitioners, TI-convergence is supported and MP-convergence is rejected. MP-convergence is epistemologically and clinically incoherent, and it cannot be regulated. It is also inconsistent with developments in the legal determination of the standard of care for both diagnosis/treatment and disclosure. These claims concerning MP-convergence are justified by the fact that science is not a member of the group of perspectives or world-views which postmodernism treats as equally valid, and this is especially important for healthcare