{"title":"Readiness of the Australian naturopathic medicine profession for evidence implementation: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Matthew J Leach","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence implementation considers the myriad factors and stakeholders that impact the delivery of best practice care. To date, no studies have comprehensively examined the contextual factors influencing evidence implementation (EI) in contemporary naturopathic medicine practice using a validated, multi-domain framework.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Australian managers, directors, administrators, academics, students and clinicians in naturopathic medicine were eligible to participate in this national cross-sectional study. Using a comprehensive recruitment strategy and non-probability sampling, participants were invited to complete the 44-item Global Assessment of the Evidence Implementation Environment (GENIE) questionnaire, online.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The GENIE questionnaire was completed by 219 participants (75.6 per cent female; 52.5 per cent aged 40-59 years). At least one-half of participants indicated that 16 of the 34 indicators of EI preparedness in naturopathic medicine had been met, with most uncertain and/or disputing that the remaining indicators had been achieved. Of the three environments examined, the regulatory environment was considered the least ready for EI in naturopathic medicine overall (46.6 per cent agreed that this sector was ready for EI), followed by the academic environment (64.0 per cent agreed this sector was ready) and clinical environment (70.9 per cent agreed this sector was ready).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This novel study highlights several shortcomings in the Australian naturopathic medicine profession's preparedness for EI, particularly in relation to evidence-based practice/research advocacy, capacity and culture. To overcome these challenges and critical sector-specific gaps, increased investment in capacity building and proactive efforts from regulatory and professional bodies will be crucial to fostering evidence-based practice, building professional credibility and improving patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000061","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Evidence implementation considers the myriad factors and stakeholders that impact the delivery of best practice care. To date, no studies have comprehensively examined the contextual factors influencing evidence implementation (EI) in contemporary naturopathic medicine practice using a validated, multi-domain framework.
Methods: Australian managers, directors, administrators, academics, students and clinicians in naturopathic medicine were eligible to participate in this national cross-sectional study. Using a comprehensive recruitment strategy and non-probability sampling, participants were invited to complete the 44-item Global Assessment of the Evidence Implementation Environment (GENIE) questionnaire, online.
Results: The GENIE questionnaire was completed by 219 participants (75.6 per cent female; 52.5 per cent aged 40-59 years). At least one-half of participants indicated that 16 of the 34 indicators of EI preparedness in naturopathic medicine had been met, with most uncertain and/or disputing that the remaining indicators had been achieved. Of the three environments examined, the regulatory environment was considered the least ready for EI in naturopathic medicine overall (46.6 per cent agreed that this sector was ready for EI), followed by the academic environment (64.0 per cent agreed this sector was ready) and clinical environment (70.9 per cent agreed this sector was ready).
Conclusion: This novel study highlights several shortcomings in the Australian naturopathic medicine profession's preparedness for EI, particularly in relation to evidence-based practice/research advocacy, capacity and culture. To overcome these challenges and critical sector-specific gaps, increased investment in capacity building and proactive efforts from regulatory and professional bodies will be crucial to fostering evidence-based practice, building professional credibility and improving patient outcomes.