Readiness of the Australian naturopathic medicine profession for evidence implementation: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Matthew J Leach
{"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.

澳大利亚自然疗法专业对证据实施的准备:一项横断面研究。
背景:证据实施考虑了影响最佳实践护理交付的无数因素和利益相关者。到目前为止,还没有研究使用一个经过验证的多领域框架全面检查影响当代自然疗法实践中证据实施(EI)的背景因素。方法:澳大利亚自然疗法管理人员、主管、行政人员、学者、学生和临床医生均有资格参加这项全国性横断面研究。采用综合招聘策略和非概率抽样,参与者被邀请在线完成44个项目的证据实施环境全球评估(GENIE)问卷。结果:219名参与者完成了GENIE问卷(75.6%为女性;年龄在40至59岁之间的占52.5%)。至少有一半的参与者表示,在自然疗法的34个EI准备指标中,有16个指标已经达到,大多数人不确定和/或质疑剩余指标是否已经达到。在调查的三个环境中,监管环境被认为是自然疗法中最不适合进行EI的环境(46.6%的人认为该行业已经准备好了),其次是学术环境(64.0%的人认为该行业已经准备好了)和临床环境(70.9%的人认为该行业已经准备好了)。结论:这项新颖的研究突出了澳大利亚自然疗法专业在为EI做准备方面的一些不足,特别是在循证实践/研究倡导、能力和文化方面。为了克服这些挑战和解决关键的部门差距,增加对能力建设的投资以及监管机构和专业机构的积极努力对于促进循证实践、建立专业信誉和改善患者预后至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信