Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34362370›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2021

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

Amie Steel, Matthew Leach, Caragh Brosnan, Vicky Ward, Iva Lloyd

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amie SteelAustralian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. amie.steel@uts.edu.au.
Matthew LeachNational Centre of Naturopathic Medicine, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia.
Caragh BrosnanSchool of Humanities and Social Science, College of Human and Social Futures, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Vicky WardReader in Management, School of Management, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Iva LloydWorld Naturopathic Federation, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Southern Cross University · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of St Andrews · GBUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsOnline, 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.

resultsThe 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%).

conclusionsBased 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.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInternationalityNaturopathyAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesEvidence-based practiceKnowledge mobilisationKnowledge translationNaturopathy

Identifiers

PMID34362370
PMCPMC8343215
OpenAlexW3188031039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.