Table 2 |
|
|
Lessons learned and future recommendations. Summary of general lessons learned and future recommendations from developing and implementing a model of integrative medicine (IM) in Swedish primary care. |
|
|
General lessons learned |
Future recommendations |
|
|
|
|
It was possible to develop a model for IM adapted to Swedish primary care despite various identified barriers. |
Funding and resource allocation beforehand important to improve provider participation and planning. |
|
Both a centralised and a decentralised clinic possible for delivering IM in primary care, the latter requiring less primary care unit resources. |
Health economic evaluation of IM management vs. treatment as usual needed to motivate management decision. |
|
Time and funding are essential to enable staff commitment, routines and resources as within normal primary care practice. |
Availability of general practitioners' specialist training in IM important. |
|
Need for a general practitioner with complementary therapy interest, knowledge and/or experience to coordinate the IM provider group. |
Common IM documentation should reflect multi-modular management, and preferably be computer-based. |
|
IM case management slightly more time consuming, but improved case conference experience contributed to more efficient case management. |
Combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods useful. |
|
Continuing seminars and discussions can improve understanding, knowledge, motivation and recognition between stakeholders and different medical models. Together with a shared knowledge of basic biomedicine this facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. |
|
|
Clinical practice and communication were smooth within the IM group but written documentation procedures were more difficult to standardise. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sundberg et al. BMC Health Services Research 2007 7:107 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-107 |
|