ORCID Profile
0000-0001-8684-0403
Current Organisation
University of St Andrews
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Bristol University Press
Date: 12-06-2023
DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16843219978173
Abstract: Primary care professions practicing traditional medicine systems, such as naturopathy, may have an increased need to use critical thinking to integrated erse knowledge sources in response to the complex ‘messiness’ of clinical practice. The degree to which the varied knowledge types used by naturopathic practitioners align with evidence-based practice principles remains unexplored. To investigate naturopathic practitioners’ behaviours, perceptions and attitudes towards their use of knowledge and information sources. An online cross-sectional survey study administered in five languages to the international naturopathic profession. Descriptive statistics were prepared using Stata 16.1. Survey respondents (n=453) represented all world regions. The most common type of knowledge used to inform clinical practice was developed through clinical experience (86.2%) or during initial clinical training (81.2%). The most used information sources were scientific journals (80.4%), conferences or other professional events (78.2%), modern naturopathic clinical textbooks (74.6%), laboratory, pathology or radiology tests (74.0%), or professional journals for clinicians (73.5%). The greatest trust in knowledge acquired from information sources was attributed to information from laboratory, pathology or radiology tests. The greatest importance was placed on information based on the patient’s perspective of living with their health condition. Naturopathic practitioners do not appear to have a strong level of trust for any particular information source, despite variations in trust between sources. Further, their philosophies and principles may promote the importance naturopathic practitioners place on non-research information sources such as patient experience and add further complexity to clinical decision-making processes for naturopathic practitioners.
Publisher: Bristol University Press
Date: 11-2011
Abstract: The limited extent to which research evidence is utilised in healthcare and other public services is widely acknowledged. The United Kingdom government has attempted to address this gap by funding nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). CLAHRCs aim to carry out health research, implement research findings in local healthcare organisations and build capacity across organisations for generating and using evidence. This wide-ranging brief requires multifaceted approaches assessing CLAHRCs’ success thus poses challenges for evaluation. This paper discusses these challenges in relation to seven CLAHRC evaluations, eliciting implications and suggestions for others evaluating similarly complex interventions with erse objectives.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-08-2021
DOI: 10.1186/S12906-021-03383-2
Abstract: The contemporary evidence-based practice model acknowledges the importance of patient preferences and clinician experience when applying evidence within a clinical setting. Knowledge mobilisation (KM) acknowledges the complexities of knowledge translation by recognising and respecting ersity in types of knowledge and how such ersity can influence health care and health care choices. While there has been considerable discussion on KM in health care, it has received little attention in the field of naturopathy. Despite naturopathy’s widespread international use, it is unclear how naturopathic practitioners (NPs) use and share knowledge and information in clinical practice. This study examines the mobilisation of knowledge amongst NPs internationally. Online, international, cross-sectional survey of a self-selected s le of NPs from any country, that were either currently in clinical practice or had been in practice within the previous 12 months. The survey was administered in five languages (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German). Descriptive statistics were prepared for all survey items. The survey was completed by 478 NPs who reported using an average of seven (median = 7, SD = 2.6) information sources to inform patient care. NPs also drew on knowledge gained through patients sharing their perspectives of living with their health condition (Always/Most of the time: 89.3%). They mostly sought knowledge about how a treatment might benefit a patient, as well as knowledge about treatment safety and a better understanding of a patient’s health condition. NPs frequently reported sharing knowledge developed through consideration of the patient’s unique needs (83.3%), and primarily shared knowledge by producing information for the public (72.6%) and for patients (72.2%). Based on these findings, it may be argued that NPs practice knowledge mobilisation employing multiple forms and sources of knowledge, and mobilising knowledge to - as well as from - others. Due to their active engagement in patient and community education, NPs also may be considered knowledge brokers. In the context of the growing understanding of the complexities of knowledge translation and mobilisation in contemporary health care – and particularly within the context of implementation science – this study provides novel insights into an under-researched element of health services accessed by the community.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-07-2023
DOI: 10.1186/S12906-023-04087-5
Abstract: 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. 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. 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. 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.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Vicky Ward.