Australian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 235-253 Jones St, Ultimo, 2006, Australia.
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, England.
BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023 Jul 18;23(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12906-023-04087-5.
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.
大多数知识转化模型对患者持有的知识关注甚少,主要基于这样一个前提,即研究人员和临床医生掌握所有有价值的知识,而患者则是这种知识的被动接受者。与这种以临床医生和研究人员为中心的观点相反的是,人们越来越关注并意识到患者是其健康方面的专家。虽然顺势疗法被描述为一种以患者为中心的传统医学系统,但患者持有的知识的地位尚不清楚,特别是在考虑到他们使用其他更客观的知识形式(如研究证据)时。
本项国际在线横断面调查旨在探讨顺势疗法从业者在顺势疗法临床咨询背景下对患者共享知识和信息的价值和贡献的看法。
共有 453 名顺势疗法从业者(回应率:74.3%)完成了调查。大约三分之二(68.2%)的受访者报告使用了患者提供的信息。大多数人认为“患者提供的信息”对患者“极其重要”(60.7%)或“非常重要”(31.4%)。报告的最高信任度来自患者提供的信息(“完全”:9.9%;“很多”:53.6%)。大多数从业者表示,他们完全信任(n=79,21.8%)或非常信任(n=226,62.4%)从患者角度来看,患者的个人健康史中提供的知识和信息(“完全”[n=63,17.4%];“很多”[n=224,61.9%])患有某种健康状况。患者被认为是影响 NP 使用患者对其健康状况的生活体验来为临床决策提供信息的最高排名利益相关者群体(平均值:1.5)。
研究人员和政策制定者越来越关注临床决策中“专家患者”的价值,但卫生专业人员报告的挑战,在某些情况下,对在实践中有意参与患者共享知识存在抵触情绪。然而,我们的研究发现,患者共享知识——包括患者对其健康状况的体验——是被顺势疗法从业者用来为其临床决策提供信息的知识之一。这项研究不仅为研究较少的健康专业知识转化行为提供了深入的见解,而且为更广泛地将患者共享知识纳入临床护理的目标做出了新的贡献。