首页> 外文期刊>Complementary therapies in medicine >Naturopaths and Western herbalists' attitudes to evidence, regulation, information sources and knowledge about popular complementary medicines
【24h】

Naturopaths and Western herbalists' attitudes to evidence, regulation, information sources and knowledge about popular complementary medicines

机译:自然疗法和西方草药学家对流行补充药物的证据,法规,信息来源和知识的态度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: The practice of naturopathy and Western herbal medicine (WHM) was built on traditional evidence but may be undergoing change with the advent of scientific evidence. The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of practitioners' attitudes towards evidence, information sources, professional regulation and their knowledge about the evidence of commonly used complementary medicines (CMs). Method: Naturopaths and WHM practitioners were invited to participate in an anonymous, self-administered, on-line survey. Participants were recruited using the mailing lists and websites of CM manufacturers and professional associations. Results: Four hundred and seventy nine practitioners participated; 95% currently in practice. The majority (99%) thought well documented traditional evidence was essential or important, 97% patient reports and feedback, 97% personal experience, 94% controlled randomised trials and 89% published case reports. Significantly more recent graduates (less than 5 years) rated randomised trials as essential compared to others. Most (82%) respondents want information sources containing both traditional and scientific evidence. They currently use several resources; 74% CM textbooks, 67% conferences/seminars, 57% CM journals, 48% databases and 40% manufacturers' information. The mean knowledge score was 61.5% with no significant differences between respondents with diploma or degree level education or by graduating year. Eighty-five percent of practitioners strongly agreed or agreed that practitioners should be formally registered to safeguard the public, 8% were unsure and 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Conclusion: Naturopaths and WHM practitioners accept the importance of scientific evidence whilst maintaining the importance and use of traditional evidence. The majority are in favour of professional registration. ? 2012 Elsevier Ltd.
机译:背景:自然疗法和西草药(WHM)的实践是建立在传统证据基础上的,但随着科学证据的出现,它可能会发生变化。这项研究的目的是为了更好地了解从业者对证据,信息来源,专业法规及其对常用补充药物(CMs)证据的了解的态度。方法:邀请自然疗法和WHM从业人员参加匿名的,自我管理的在线调查。使用CM制造商和专业协会的邮件列表和网站来招募参与者。结果:479位从业者参加了会议;目前有95%在实践中。大多数(99%)认为记录良好的传统证据必不可少或重要; 97%的患者报告和反馈,97%的个人经验,94%的随机对照试验和89%的已发表病例报告。相对于其他毕业生,最近更多的毕业生(不到5年)认为随机试验是必不可少的。大多数(82%)的受访者希望信息源既包含传统证据又包含科学证据。他们目前使用几种资源。 74%的CM教科书,67%的会议/研讨会,57%的CM期刊,48%的数据库和40%的制造商信息。平均知识得分为61.5%,受过文凭或学位程度教育或毕业年份的受访者之间没有显着差异。有百分之八十五的从业者强烈同意或同意从业人员应经过正式注册以保护公众,有8%的人不确定或有8%的人不同意或强烈不同意。结论:自然疗法和WHM从业者在保持传统证据的重要性和使用性的同时,接受科学证据的重要性。多数人赞成专业注册。 ? 2012爱思唯尔有限公司

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号