J M Dunn1,2, A E Steel3, J Adams3, I Lloyd4, N De Groot4,5, T Hausser4, J Wardle3,6. 1. University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. Jillian.M.Dunn@student.uts.edu.au. 2. World Naturopathic Federation, 20 Holly St, Suite, Toronto, 200, Canada. Jillian.M.Dunn@student.uts.edu.au. 3. Australian Research Centre in Complementary & Integrative Medicine (ARCCIM), School of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. 4. World Naturopathic Federation, 20 Holly St, Suite, Toronto, 200, Canada. 5. Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, 1255 Sheppard Ave East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine, Southern Cross University, Military Road, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This descriptive study provides the first examination of global naturopathic education, regulation and practice frameworks that have potential to constrain or assist professional formation and integration in global health systems. Despite increasing public use, a significant workforce, and World Health Organization calls for national policy development to support integration of services, existent frameworks as potential barriers to integration have not been examined. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey utilized purposive sampling of 65 naturopathic organisations (educational institutions, professional associations, and regulatory bodies) from 29 countries. Organizational representatives completed an on-line survey, conducted between Nov 2016 - Aug 2019. Frequencies and cross-tabulation statistics were analyzed using SPSSv.25. Qualitative responses were hand-coded and thematically analysed where appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 228 naturopathic organizations completed the survey (29% response rate) from 29 of 46 countries (63% country response rate). Most education programs (68%) were delivered via a national framework. Higher education qualifications (60%) predominated. Organizations influential in education were professional associations (75.4%), particularly where naturopathy was unregulated, and accreditation bodies (41.5%) and regulatory boards (33.8%) where regulated. Full access to controlled acts, and to health insurance rebates were more commonly reported where regulated. Attitude of decision-makers, opinions of other health professions and existing legislation were perceived to most impact regulation, which was globally heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Education and regulation of the naturopathic profession has significant heterogeneity, even in the face of global calls for consistent regulation that recognizes naturopathy as a medical system. Standards are highest and consistency more apparent in countries with regulatory frameworks.
BACKGROUND: This descriptive study provides the first examination of global naturopathic education, regulation and practice frameworks that have potential to constrain or assist professional formation and integration in global health systems. Despite increasing public use, a significant workforce, and World Health Organization calls for national policy development to support integration of services, existent frameworks as potential barriers to integration have not been examined. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey utilized purposive sampling of 65 naturopathic organisations (educational institutions, professional associations, and regulatory bodies) from 29 countries. Organizational representatives completed an on-line survey, conducted between Nov 2016 - Aug 2019. Frequencies and cross-tabulation statistics were analyzed using SPSSv.25. Qualitative responses were hand-coded and thematically analysed where appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 228 naturopathic organizations completed the survey (29% response rate) from 29 of 46 countries (63% country response rate). Most education programs (68%) were delivered via a national framework. Higher education qualifications (60%) predominated. Organizations influential in education were professional associations (75.4%), particularly where naturopathy was unregulated, and accreditation bodies (41.5%) and regulatory boards (33.8%) where regulated. Full access to controlled acts, and to health insurance rebates were more commonly reported where regulated. Attitude of decision-makers, opinions of other health professions and existing legislation were perceived to most impact regulation, which was globally heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Education and regulation of the naturopathic profession has significant heterogeneity, even in the face of global calls for consistent regulation that recognizes naturopathy as a medical system. Standards are highest and consistency more apparent in countries with regulatory frameworks.
Authors: Charlie C L Xue; Anthony L Zhang; Vivian Lin; Cliff Da Costa; David F Story Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Amie Steel; Rebecca Redmond; Janet Schloss; Holger Cramer; Joshua Goldenberg; Matthew J Leach; Joanna Elizabeth Harnett; Claudine Van de Venter; Andy McLintock; Ryan Bradley; Jason Hawrelak; Kieran Cooley; Brenda Leung; Jon Adams; Jon Wardle Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 3.006