Conventional and complementary health care use and out-of-pocket expenses among Australians with a self-reported mental health diagnosis: a cross-sectional survey

Mental Health Literacy and Education of Complementary Medicine Practitioners: A Cross-Sectional Study

An estimated 42% of Australians who consult complementary medicine (CM) practitioners have a mental health diagnosis. Preparedness of CM practitioners in managing such diagnoses is currently unknown. A cross-sectional survey of 257 CM practitioners who reported caring for people with a mental health diagnosis. Practitioners' mental health literacy, educational needs, and confidence in the assessment, management, and treatment of mental health-including suicide risk-were analysed. Most (59.1%) participants had no formal qualifications in mental health and 44.3% indicated they had not completed any training in psychological therapies. Only 20% were trained in mindfulness-based techniques or goal setting. Over 50% reported their undergraduate qualification contained insufficient mental health content to prepare them for clinical practice. Over one-half had attended continuing professional education on mental health. Practitioners reported greater confidence in assessing, managing, and treating mental wellbeing over complex mental health disorders and suicide risk. These findings uncovered a deficit in the CM practitioner's surveyed mental health education. As these CM practitioners are a primary point of contact for patients with mental health diagnoses, there is a critical need to expedite skills development in this workforce to support the delivery of safe and effective primary mental health care.

Practice recommendations and referrals, perceptions of efficacy and risk, and self-rated knowledge regarding complementary medicine: a survey of Australian psychologists

BACKGROUND

Many people with mental health problems use a range of complementary medicine (CM), including over the counter products, practices, and utilise the services of CM practitioners. Psychologists are likely to consult with clients using CM, in some form, as part of their broader mental health care. The aim of this research was to determine the number of types of CM products, practices, and practitioners are recommended and/or referred by Australian psychologists as part of their clinical practice, as well as explore the relationship between psychologists' perspectives on the risk and relevance of engaging with CM in psychology.

METHODS

Survey data was collected from psychologists in clinical practice who self-selected to participate in the study via an online 79-item questionnaire exploring core aspects of CM engagement in psychology clinical practice.

RESULTS

Amongst the 201 psychologists, 5% reported not recommending any type of CM, with 63% recommending four or more types of CM. Further, 25% had not referred to a CM practitioner, while 33% had referred to four or more types of CM practitioner. Psychologists are recommending and referring to CM even when they perceive their knowledge of CM to be poor, and that engaging with CM was a risk.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into psychologist perceptions of CM within psychology practice and how these perceptions are associated with rates of recommending and referring to CM as part of their clinical practice. These findings may inform the development of CM relevant education and guidelines for psychologists.

The relationship between psychology practice and complementary medicine in Australia: Psychologists' demographics and practice characteristics regarding type of engagement across a range of complementary medicine modalities

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.

Complementary medicine in psychology practice: an analysis of Australian psychology guidelines and a comparison with other psychology associations from English speaking countries

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.

Paying the price – out-of-pocket payments for mental health care in Australia

Objective This study set out to present data on out-of-pocket payments for Medicare mental health services provided by general practitioners (GP), psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and other psychologists, to explore how much is spent on out-of-pocket payments for mental health; if any trends could be seen; and what variations exist across regions. Methods We performed secondary analysis of publicly available data on Medicare-subsidised GP, allied health and specialist health care across Australia. We merged and interrogated data covering the period 2013-19 and 2019-21 to create a data set covering eight full years of Medicare mental health services, arranged by profession and by region. Results Out-of-pocket payments for mental health care in Australia have been rising consistently over the period 2013-21, at a considerably faster rate than overall expenditure on mental health care. There is wide variation in out-of-pocket payments depending on where you live. Conclusions The impact of out-of-pocket payments on community access to mental health care is growing. This has implications, especially in poorer communities, for access to care. This should be an important consideration taken as the Australian Government considers next steps in national mental health reform, including the Better Access Program, currently under evaluation.