Naturopaths’ mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey

Steel, A; Leach, M; Brosnan, C; Ward, V; Lloyd, I

Naturopaths’ mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey

Steel, A

Leach, M Brosnan, C Ward, V Lloyd, I

Permalink

Publisher:: BioMed Central
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 2021, 21, (1), pp. 1-12
Issue Date:: 2021-08-06

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (1.07 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Steel, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-9444
dc.contributor.author	Leach, M
dc.contributor.author	Brosnan, C
dc.contributor.author	Ward, V
dc.contributor.author	Lloyd, I
dc.date.accessioned	2022-01-09T23:38:30Z
dc.date.available	2021-07-21
dc.date.available	2022-01-09T23:38:30Z
dc.date.issued	2021-08-06
dc.identifier.citation	BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 2021, 21, (1), pp. 1-12
dc.identifier.issn	2662-7671
dc.identifier.issn	2662-7671
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152842
dc.description.abstract	Background The contemporary evidence-based practice model acknowledges the importance of patient preferences and clinician experience when applying evidence within a clinical setting. Knowledge mobilisation (KM) acknowledges the complexities of knowledge translation by recognising and respecting diversity in types of knowledge and how such diversity can influence health care and health care choices. While there has been considerable discussion on KM in health care, it has received little attention in the field of naturopathy. Despite naturopathy’s widespread international use, it is unclear how naturopathic practitioners (NPs) use and share knowledge and information in clinical practice. This study examines the mobilisation of knowledge amongst NPs internationally. Methods Online, international, cross-sectional survey of a self-selected sample of NPs from any country, that were either currently in clinical practice or had been in practice within the previous 12 months. The survey was administered in five languages (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German). Descriptive statistics were prepared for all survey items. Results The survey was completed by 478 NPs who reported using an average of seven (median = 7, SD = 2.6) information sources to inform patient care. NPs also drew on knowledge gained through patients sharing their perspectives of living with their health condition (Always/Most of the time: 89.3%). They mostly sought knowledge about how a treatment might benefit a patient, as well as knowledge about treatment safety and a better understanding of a patient’s health condition. NPs frequently reported sharing knowledge developed through consideration of the patient’s unique needs (83.3%), and primarily shared knowledge by producing information for the public (72.6%) and for patients (72.2%). Conclusions Based on these findings, it may be argued that NPs practice knowledge mobilisation; employing multiple forms and sources of knowledge, and mobilising knowledge to - as well as from - others. Due to their active engagement in patient and community education, NPs also may be considered knowledge brokers. In the context of the growing understanding of the complexities of knowledge translation and mobilisation in contemporary health care – and particularly within the context of implementation science – this study provides novel insights into an under-researched element of health services accessed by the community
dc.format	Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	BioMed Central
dc.relation.ispartof	BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1186/s12906-021-03383-2
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Evidence-Based Practice
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Internationality
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Naturopathy
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Naturopathy
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
dc.subject.mesh	Internationality
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged
dc.subject.mesh	Female
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Evidence-Based Practice
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Naturopaths’ mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	21
utslib.location.activity	England
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-01-09T23:38:26Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	21
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

Background The contemporary evidence-based practice model acknowledges the importance of patient preferences and clinician experience when applying evidence within a clinical setting. Knowledge mobilisation (KM) acknowledges the complexities of knowledge translation by recognising and respecting diversity in types of knowledge and how such diversity can influence health care and health care choices. While there has been considerable discussion on KM in health care, it has received little attention in the field of naturopathy. Despite naturopathy’s widespread international use, it is unclear how naturopathic practitioners (NPs) use and share knowledge and information in clinical practice. This study examines the mobilisation of knowledge amongst NPs internationally. Methods Online, international, cross-sectional survey of a self-selected sample of NPs from any country, that were either currently in clinical practice or had been in practice within the previous 12 months. The survey was administered in five languages (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German). Descriptive statistics were prepared for all survey items. Results The survey was completed by 478 NPs who reported using an average of seven (median = 7, SD = 2.6) information sources to inform patient care. NPs also drew on knowledge gained through patients sharing their perspectives of living with their health condition (Always/Most of the time: 89.3%). They mostly sought knowledge about how a treatment might benefit a patient, as well as knowledge about treatment safety and a better understanding of a patient’s health condition. NPs frequently reported sharing knowledge developed through consideration of the patient’s unique needs (83.3%), and primarily shared knowledge by producing information for the public (72.6%) and for patients (72.2%). Conclusions Based on these findings, it may be argued that NPs practice knowledge mobilisation; employing multiple forms and sources of knowledge, and mobilising knowledge to - as well as from - others. Due to their active engagement in patient and community education, NPs also may be considered knowledge brokers. In the context of the growing understanding of the complexities of knowledge translation and mobilisation in contemporary health care – and particularly within the context of implementation science – this study provides novel insights into an under-researched element of health services accessed by the community

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152842