Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Most knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.
Methods
This international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners’ perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.
Results
The survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated ‘information provided by the patient’ as either ‘extremely important’ (60.7%) or ‘very important’ (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient (‘completely’: 9.9%; ‘a lot’: 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient’s personal health history ‘completely’ (n = 79; 21.8%) or ‘a lot’ (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient’s perspective of living with a health condition (‘completely’ [n = 63, 17.4%]; ‘a lot’ [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.
Conclusion
Researchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the ‘expert patient’ in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals’ report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge – inclusive of patient experience of their health condition – is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Complementary and alternative medicine
Reference42 articles.
1. Raman R. Evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care: cross-disciplinary challenges and healthcare information technology-enabled solutions. Int J Pers Cent Med. 2011;1(2):279–94.
2. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300(4):436–8.
3. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. In.: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1996.
4. Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. West Sussex: Wiley; 2013.
5. Greenhalgh T, Snow R, Ryan S, Rees S, Salisbury H. Six ‘biases’ against patients and carers in evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–11.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献