TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence implementation in naturopathy
T2 - A cross-sectional study of Australian naturopaths
AU - Leach, Matthew J.
AU - Veziari, Yasamin
N1 - Funding Information:
Structural factors, such as time and availability of evidence, were prominent barriers to the implementation of evidence in naturopathic practice. These results are consistent with the views of Australian naturopaths a decade ago [39], Canadian [16] and New Zealand [24] naturopaths more recently, and other health professions [27, 29–32,39]. The findings are also congruent with the outcome of a review commissioned by the Australian Government in 2017, which resulted in a decision to exclude naturopathy from private health insurance rebates due to a perceived lack of evidence to support Australian naturopathic practice [40]. While this government review was methodologically flawed and had disregarded a plethora of evidence in support of naturopathic practice [41], this is not to say that there is no room for improvement. Indeed, the lack of investment in naturopathic and complementary medicine research is well documented [42], suggesting that targeted funding opportunities aimed at building research capacity and productivity in the field could provide a means by which to improve the availability of evidence in naturopathy. Of course, addressing the perceived lack of evidence in naturopathy is not just about generating more evidence; it is also about raising practitioner awareness of such evidence.The study was reviewed and approved by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee [App. ID. 202745]. Consent to participate was implied based on completion of the online survey.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Background and Purpose: Evidence implementation refers to the application of appropriate enabling strategies to improve clinician engagement with the best available evidence. To date, little attention has been paid to evidence implementation in disciplines such as naturopathy. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in Australian naturopathic practice. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was open to all Australian naturopaths who had internet access and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between March and July 2020. Results: The survey was completed in full by 174 naturopaths (87.4% female; 31.6% aged 40–59 years). While participant attitudes were predominantly favourable of evidence implementation, engagement in evidence implementation activities was reported at a low to moderate level. Factors impacting participant engagement in such activities included a lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, lack of time, and a moderate to moderately-high level of self-reported skill in evidence implementation. Enablers of evidence implementation were access to the internet, free online databases, full-text journal articles, and online education materials. Conclusion: This study has provided valuable insights into the level of, and factors impacting evidence implementation among Australian naturopaths. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural and cognitive. This suggests that the obstacles to evidence implementation in naturopathy are most likely surmountable with the right means and concerted effort.
AB - Background and Purpose: Evidence implementation refers to the application of appropriate enabling strategies to improve clinician engagement with the best available evidence. To date, little attention has been paid to evidence implementation in disciplines such as naturopathy. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in Australian naturopathic practice. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was open to all Australian naturopaths who had internet access and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between March and July 2020. Results: The survey was completed in full by 174 naturopaths (87.4% female; 31.6% aged 40–59 years). While participant attitudes were predominantly favourable of evidence implementation, engagement in evidence implementation activities was reported at a low to moderate level. Factors impacting participant engagement in such activities included a lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, lack of time, and a moderate to moderately-high level of self-reported skill in evidence implementation. Enablers of evidence implementation were access to the internet, free online databases, full-text journal articles, and online education materials. Conclusion: This study has provided valuable insights into the level of, and factors impacting evidence implementation among Australian naturopaths. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural and cognitive. This suggests that the obstacles to evidence implementation in naturopathy are most likely surmountable with the right means and concerted effort.
KW - Attitude
KW - Cross-sectional studies
KW - Evidence-based practice
KW - Implementation science
KW - Naturopathy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85162784537&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ctcp.2023.101777
DO - 10.1016/j.ctcp.2023.101777
M3 - Article
C2 - 37385012
AN - SCOPUS:85162784537
SN - 1744-3881
VL - 52
JO - Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
JF - Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
M1 - 101777
ER -