Implementation science in New Zealand naturopathic practice: A cross-sectional study

9Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: Understanding and addressing the barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) falls within the realm of implementation science. To date, disciplines such as naturopathy have paid little attention to implementation science, meaning the obstacles to delivering best practice care have largely been ignored. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in New Zealand naturopathic practice. Methods: This cross-sectional study was open to all New Zealand naturopaths who had Internet access, and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between February and July 2020. Results: The survey was completed in full by 104 naturopaths (86% female; 55% aged 40-59a-years). While attitudes toward EBP were generally favourable, engagement in EBP activities was reported at a moderate-low level. Factors potentially contributing to the modest uptake of EBP were the moderate level of self-reported EBP-related skill, lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy and lack of time. Enablers of EBP uptake that were supported by the majority of participants were access to the Internet, online databases, EBP education materials, and full-Text journal articles. Conclusions: This study has provided much-needed insight into the level of EBP engagement among New Zealand naturopaths, as well as the various factors impacting evidence implementation. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural, cognitive and cultural. This suggests that the barriers to EBP uptake in naturopathy are not unsurmountable.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Leach, M. J. (2022). Implementation science in New Zealand naturopathic practice: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, 19(3), 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2021-0508

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free