Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37464265›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2023

Patient-shared knowledge and information in clinical decision-making: an international survey of the perspectives and experiences of naturopathic practitioners.

Amie Steel, Sarah Brand, Matthew Leach, Iva Lloyd, Vicky Ward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Amie SteelAustralian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 235-253 Jones St, Ultimo, 2006, Australia. Amie.steel@uts.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-9444
Sarah BrandNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7271-8180
Matthew LeachNational Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3133-1913
Iva LloydWorld Naturopathic Federation, Toronto, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2960-3537
Vicky WardResearch Unit for Research Utilisation, School of Management, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8684-0403

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMost knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.

methodsThis international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.

resultsThe survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.

conclusionResearchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.

Indexed as

NaturopathyAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesKnowledge mobilisationKnowledge translationNaturopathyPatient-centred careShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37464265
PMCPMC10354883

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.