Navigating complementary medicines

For practitioners, quality and evidence matter more than ever. SFI Health is raising the bar with gold-standard formulations that don't compromise on clinical integrity.

- 

We speak to SFI Health's Science and Education Manager, Simone Barrance, who is also a naturopath, about bridging the gap between complementary and clinical care and why product quality should be at the heart of every patient recommendation.

The complementary medicine space can be incredibly complex and often difficult to navigate for both practitioners and patients. Practitioners face the challenge of distinguishing between products that may appear similar on the surface, due to permitted indications and claims, but vary significantly in formulation, evidence and efficacy. Patients, meanwhile, often rely on marketing or online reviews without the necessary tools to evaluate therapeutic dosage, standardised extracts or excipient profiles. This can lead to poor outcomes, not because of the modality itself, but because the chosen product was subtherapeutic or inappropriate for their needs. The sheer volume of information, and misinformation, available online compounds this issue, making it harder for patients to make informed decisions and highlighting the need for expert guidance.

How do similar-looking products produce vastly different clinical outcomes?

One of the major challenges in complementary medicine is the illusion of equivalence between products. Since permitted health claims are not dose-dependent, two products can carry the same indication, such as “supports relaxation” or “relieves mild stress", despite having vastly different formulations.

For instance, a magnesium supplement containing a bioavailable form at a clinically effective dose may deliver strong results, while another with a poorly absorbed form at a low dose might not. Similarly, in herbal medicine, one product might use a standardised extract from a specific plant part, while another relies on an unstandardised version with limited therapeutic relevance. Despite these differences, both products can legally make the same claim.