Licensure Without Oversight: Impact of Regulatory Supervision on Traditional Medicine Practice in Ghana.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Benedict Owusu Yankyera, Rudolph Mensah, Kofi Busia
{"title":"Licensure Without Oversight: Impact of Regulatory Supervision on Traditional Medicine Practice in Ghana.","authors":"Benedict Owusu Yankyera, Rudolph Mensah, Kofi Busia","doi":"10.1177/27683605261488964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Regulatory frameworks for traditional and alternative medicine commonly emphasize licensure as a mechanism for ensuring safety, quality, and sustainability. However, limited evidence exists on whether licensure without ongoing oversight meaningfully regulates practitioner conduct or promotes sustainable practices. This study examined the relationship between licensure, regulatory supervision, compliance, and sustainability-related practices among traditional medicine practitioners (TMPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 303 TMPs. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, licensing status, regulatory supervision, compliance with regulatory schemes, sources of raw materials, and cultivation practices. Associations were assessed using chi-square tests. The study is reported in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While licensed practitioners were significantly more likely to report regulatory supervision than unlicensed practitioners (χ<sup>2</sup> = 39.64, <i>p</i> < 0.001), half of licensed practitioners had never experienced supervision. Overall compliance with regulatory schemes was low (12.2%) and was not significantly associated with perceived regulatory performance (χ<sup>2</sup> = 0.53, <i>p</i> = 0.465). Most practitioners relied on wild harvesting for raw materials (65.0%), with limited engagement in self-cultivation (17.2%) or intention to cultivate in the future (25.7%). Neither licensure nor supervision was significantly associated with adoption of cultivation practices.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings suggest that licensure without sustained supervision regulates entry into practice but does not effectively regulate conduct, compliance, or sustainability. Strengthening postlicensure oversight and integrating sustainability-focused regulatory mechanisms may be essential for achieving meaningful regulation of traditional medicine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":29734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"27683605261488964"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27683605261488964","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Regulatory frameworks for traditional and alternative medicine commonly emphasize licensure as a mechanism for ensuring safety, quality, and sustainability. However, limited evidence exists on whether licensure without ongoing oversight meaningfully regulates practitioner conduct or promotes sustainable practices. This study examined the relationship between licensure, regulatory supervision, compliance, and sustainability-related practices among traditional medicine practitioners (TMPs).

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 303 TMPs. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, licensing status, regulatory supervision, compliance with regulatory schemes, sources of raw materials, and cultivation practices. Associations were assessed using chi-square tests. The study is reported in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

Results: While licensed practitioners were significantly more likely to report regulatory supervision than unlicensed practitioners (χ2 = 39.64, p < 0.001), half of licensed practitioners had never experienced supervision. Overall compliance with regulatory schemes was low (12.2%) and was not significantly associated with perceived regulatory performance (χ2 = 0.53, p = 0.465). Most practitioners relied on wild harvesting for raw materials (65.0%), with limited engagement in self-cultivation (17.2%) or intention to cultivate in the future (25.7%). Neither licensure nor supervision was significantly associated with adoption of cultivation practices.

Discussion: The findings suggest that licensure without sustained supervision regulates entry into practice but does not effectively regulate conduct, compliance, or sustainability. Strengthening postlicensure oversight and integrating sustainability-focused regulatory mechanisms may be essential for achieving meaningful regulation of traditional medicine practice.

无监督的许可:加纳传统医学实践监管的影响。
导论:传统和替代医学的监管框架通常强调许可是确保安全、质量和可持续性的机制。然而,没有持续监督的许可证是否有意义地规范从业者的行为或促进可持续的做法,证据有限。本研究考察了传统医学从业者的许可、监管、合规和可持续性相关实践之间的关系。方法:采用横断面调查方法对303例颞下颌关节缺损患者进行调查。收集的数据包括社会人口学特征、许可状况、监管监管、监管方案遵守情况、原材料来源和种植方式。使用卡方检验评估相关性。该研究是根据《加强流行病学观察性研究报告指南》报道的。结果:尽管持牌执业医师报告监管监督的可能性明显高于无牌执业医师(χ2 = 39.64, p < 0.001),但有一半的持牌执业医师从未经历过监管。对监管方案的总体依从性较低(12.2%),与感知的监管绩效无显著相关(χ2 = 0.53, p = 0.465)。大多数从业者依赖于野外采伐原材料(65.0%),有限的自我修炼(17.2%)或未来修炼的意图(25.7%)。许可证和监管与种植方法的采用均无显著相关性。讨论:研究结果表明,没有持续监管的许可规范了进入实践,但不能有效地规范行为、合规或可持续性。加强许可后监督和整合以可持续性为重点的监管机制对于实现对传统医学实践的有意义的监管可能至关重要。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书