Evidence implementation in naturopathy: A cross-sectional study of Australian naturopaths

Abstract

Background and PurposeEvidence implementation refers to the application of appropriate enabling strategies to improve clinician engagement with the best available evidence. To date, little attention has been paid to evidence implementation in disciplines such as naturopathy. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in Australian naturopathic practice. Materials and methodsThis cross-sectional study was open to all Australian 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 March and July 2020. ResultsThe survey was completed in full by 174 naturopaths (87.4% female; 31.6% aged 40–59 years). While participant attitudes were predominantly favourable of evidence implementation, engagement in evidence implementation activities was reported at a low to moderate level. Factors impacting participant engagement in such activities included a lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, lack of time, and a moderate to moderately-high level of self-reported skill in evidence implementation. Enablers of evidence implementation were access to the internet, free online databases, full-text journal articles, and online education materials. ConclusionThis study has provided valuable insights into the level of, and factors impacting evidence implementation among Australian naturopaths. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural and cognitive. This suggests that the obstacles to evidence implementation in naturopathy are most likely surmountable with the right means and concerted effort.