Kate Davies: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia. kate.davies@newcastle.edu.au.
Milena Heinsch: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Campbell Tickner: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Caragh Brosnan: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Amie Steel: Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Gupteswar Patel: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Molly Marsh: School of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
BACKGROUND: Complementary Medicine (CM) is widely used internationally but there is limited understanding of the forms of knowledge CM practitioners use in their clinical practice and how they use this knowledge in interactions with patients. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on the forms of knowledge that are mobilised, and the role of this knowledge in the interactions between practitioners and patients during CM consultations. It considered a diverse range of CM practice areas to develop a classification of CM practitioners' knowledge use in consultations. METHODS: Systematic searches of health and sociology databases were conducted using core concepts, including complementary and alternative medicine, practitioners, and knowledge. Articles were included where they reported on data from recorded CM practitioner and patient consultations and offered insights into the types and applications of knowledge used in these consultations. 16 unique studies were included in the review. Data were extracted, coded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Results demonstrate that diverse sources of knowledge were mobilised by practitioners, predominantly derived from the patients themselves -their bodies and their narratives. This reflected principles of patient-centredness. The use of discipline specific forms of knowledge and references to biomedical sources illustrated ongoing efforts towards legitimacy for CM practice. CONCLUSION: CM practitioners are navigating tensions between what some might see as competing, others as complementary, forms of knowledge. The classification system provides a useful tool for promoting critically reflective practice by CM practitioners, particularly in relation to self-assessment of knowledge translation and patient interactions.
