Monique Aucoin,1 ND, Genevieve Newton,2 DC, PhD, and Kieran Cooley,3 BSc, ND
The process of applying new scientific knowledge to clinical decision-making is critical for the provision of optimal health-care delivery; however, this process is often slow or inconsistent. Knowledge mobilization is the iterative and bidirectional process that involves the generation, dissemination, and translation of knowledge between researchers and knowledge users. Incorporation and application of knowledge mobilization in health care is being increasingly recognized across all fields, including naturopathic medicine. This review explores generally employed knowledge mobilization approaches. Additionally, it summarizes the knowledge mobilization strategies currently being used by the Canadian naturopathic profession and makes recommendations on the strategies which might be used in the future to bridge the gap between research evidence and clinical practice.
Key Words Naturopathic, naturopathy, knowledge translation, knowledge mobilization, knowledge transfer
The process of applying new scientific knowledge to clinical decision-making is critical for the provision of optimal health-care delivery. This process, however, is often slow or inconsistent1; it has been estimated that it takes an average of 17 years for clinical practice to change in response to new research findings.2 Attention to this issue has been steadily increasing in the past two decades and has led to the development of strategies to close the gap between knowledge and action.3,4 These strategies have been described using a range of terminology. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) defines knowledge translation (KT) as “a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically-sound application of knowledge” involving interactions between researchers and knowledge users with the goal of positively impacting health outcomes and the health-care system.5 A related term is knowledge mobilization (KMb), defined by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) as “the reciprocal and complementary flow and uptake of research knowledge between researchers, knowledge brokers and knowledge users”; this includes a broad array of activities including “knowledge synthesis, dissemination, transfer, exchange and co-creation or co-production by researchers and knowledge users.”6 Although KT and KMb describe similar activities related to moving knowledge into action, KMb places an additional emphasis on a bidirectional flow of activities and engagement between researchers and stakeholders.7 This engagement allows knowledge to be refined into a format that is understandable and tailored to the needs of the user in order to increase the likelihood of effecting change compared with simple dissemination.8 The process, and the ethics, of moving knowledge into action is being increasingly recognized for its importance, and research in this field is expanding.
In order to effectively research the process of closing the gap between knowledge and action, systematic study using clear terminology and conceptualization is required. One obstacle to this process is the large number of words or phrases that have been used to describe the process of closing the knowledge–action gap. Beyond KMb and KT, at least 100 additional terms have been identified.4 Other frequently used terms include knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, implementation, and dissemination, and research utilization.3 The CIHR Knowledge-to-Action Model was created to conceptualize the process of mobilizing knowledge.3 Rather than viewing the process of bringing knowledge to action as a one-way street from researchers to knowledge users, this circular model represents a non-hierarchical, multi-directional, iterative, and ongoing process. It highlights important steps such as the identification of knowledge gaps, assessment of barriers to change, adaptation of knowledge to the local context, and selection, tailoring, and implementation of interventions. Further steps include evaluation of outcomes and efforts to sustain ongoing knowledge use.3 In response to a need to systematically research methods used to promote the transfer of research evidence into clinical practice and health-care policy, a new field of study was created. Implementation science (IS) is defined as “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services.”9 These efforts to define, conceptualize and study the process of mobilizing knowledge are essential to improving the uptake of research evidence by clinicians as well as the communication of research between relevant stakeholders.
Incorporation and application of knowledge mobilization in health care is being increasingly recognized across all fields, including naturopathic medicine. Naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of health care which uses traditional and natural therapies in combination with modern scientific knowledge.10 A set of guiding principles unify a fundamental approach to clinical care.10 Naturopathic medicine is typically considered a type of complementary and alternative medicine, as services are not provided within Canadian hospitals and are not eligible for reimbursement by provincial health insurance plans.11,12 Within Canada, naturopathic medicine is currently regulated in six provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia.13 Registration as a Naturopathic Doctor (ND) requires the completion of an undergraduate degree, a full-time, 4-year naturopathic medical program offered by an accredited institution, as well as proof of liability insurance, completion of licensing and provincial board examinations, and expectations for continuing education.10 There are approximately 2,400 NDs in Canada.13 In provinces where naturopathic medicine is unregulated, practitioners with various levels of experience or training may use similar titles (for example “naturopath” or “naturopathic practitioner”)12; however, these unlicensed practitioners are not the focus of the present publication. In recent years, there has been increasing attention paid to the way in which the foundational principles of naturopathic medicine interface with modern scientific evidence and how these different types of evidence might be incorporated into clinical decision-making.
The uptake of new knowledge into clinical practice is a critical component of evidence-based medicine (EBM) or evidence-based practice (EBP), defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” through attention to and integration of best available scientific evidence, patient values and preferences, and clinician experience.14 Research has identified several benefits related to the use of EBP in medical practice, including improved patient outcomes and a decrease in health-care costs.15 A recent review was published summarizing the evidence related to Canadian NDs’ attitudes, skills, and usage of EBP.16
While there are indications that Canadians NDs are seeking out new evidence and applying it to clinical care, it also appears that, as in many professions, this use falls below optimal levels. In order to facilitate the use of evidence within the Canadian naturopathic profession, consideration of KMb strategies is important. To date, no previous reviews have attempted to identify the KMb strategies currently used in the Canadian naturopathic community. The present publication aims to address this important gap.
Based on an exploration of generally employed KMb approaches, the purpose of the present publication is to summarize the KMb strategies currently being used by the Canadian naturopathic profession, including international strategies that involve the participation of Canadian NDs, and to make recommendations on those which might be used in the future to bridge the gap between research evidence and clinical practice.
While the purpose of the present publication is to review the KMb strategies being used by the Canadian naturopathic profession and to make recommendations on those that might be used in the future, it is important to first describe KMb strategies more generally. The KMb strategies have been investigated using a variety of research approaches, including randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series trials, cohort studies, and qualitative studies, which have captured results related to patient outcomes, professional/process outcomes, and economic outcomes, as well as cultural and attitudinal shifts.17 This section will begin with a summary of the different characteristics of KMb strategies, as these can impact the intervention’s cost, accessibility, acceptability, degree of involvement by different stakeholders, and effectiveness in changing behaviour. Following this will be a review of the types of KMb strategies that frequently target health professionals, including their effectiveness and some of the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies. Lastly, the strategies currently being used in the Canadian naturopathic community will be presented.
Passive strategies do not involve interaction between the knowledge-creator and the knowledge-user. These include publication of peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical practice guidelines, websites, and textbooks. Passive strategies do not tailor the message to a targeted recipient, and the dissemination is not planned or controlled.18 These strategies are typically lower in cost19; however, effectiveness is highly dependent on the audience’s motivation and efforts to look for them,18 and as a result, they are considered to be less effective.20 Active strategies involve targeting and packaging information for an indented audience. These include conferences, lectures, workshops, outreach visits, and audit and feedback interventions. Active strategies are generally considered to be more effective than passive ones21; however, examples of successful passive strategies exist, including one study that found similar improvement in use of guidelines with passive and active dissemination.22
Push strategies (also described as “research-push” or “producer-push”) are projects where the researcher initiates and conducts the study as well as the transfer of findings. In contrast, pull (also described as “user-pull”) strategies take place when the knowledge user or decision maker commissions the research to address a need. Exchange strategies involve a collaboration between researchers and knowledge users to generate research which is relevant to both groups.23 These knowledge exchange strategies align with the knowledge-to-action cycle3 in that they are interactive, iterative, and involve ongoing collaboration. The result is information that is perceived as relevant and useable to the researcher and the user; there is evidence that this results in increased application of the findings.24
Tailored interventions are initiatives aimed at changing professional behaviour that are designed with consideration of prospectively identified barriers that could limit the intervention’s effectiveness.25 Categories of barriers that have been identified by The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care include patient expectations, financial disincentives, clinical uncertainty, standards of practice, sense of competence, perceptions of liability, and administrative constraints.26 A 2010 review reported that tailored interventions are more likely to impact behaviour change than no intervention or printed educational materials and guidelines.25
Multifaceted interventions combine two or more individual components with the goal of overcoming multiple barriers. While the results of one systematic review suggest that multifaceted interventions improve effectiveness,20 an analysis of multifaceted interventions did not find a greater effect associated with a larger number of interventions,19 and consideration of additional costs and potential interactions between individual components are potentially relevant considerations.1
Printed educational materials are published or printed documents, including peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical care recommendations, guidelines, or monographs. They can include audio-visual components and may be published electronically. The audience may be targeted, or the materials may be distributed broadly through mass mailings.27 The purpose of this widely used KMb method27 may be an increase in knowledge or motivation among recipients. A benefit of printed educational materials is their feasibility and relatively low cost.27 A recent Cochrane review synthesized the results of 84 studies, including 32 RCTs, that tested the effectiveness of this KMb strategy. The review found, with moderate certainty, that the materials improved practice compared with no intervention but exerted little or no impact on patient health outcomes. No difference was found between paper-based and computer-based delivery of the same material.27
Educational meetings are widely used in continuing medical education. Educational meetings include conferences, workshops, and lectures. Meetings vary with respect to their content, length, number of participants and degree of participant interaction.28 Didactic meetings are better suited to address knowledge gaps while interactive workshops can be used to address attitudes and skills.1 A Cochrane review reported the findings of 81 RCTs assessing the impact of educational meetings on clinical practice or patient outcomes.28 When assessing behaviour change in comparison with no intervention, educational meetings resulted in a risk difference of 6% (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.8–15.3%) for comparison trials and a 10% adjusted percent change for continuous outcomes. There was also a benefit to patient outcomes. A greater impact was associated with higher attendance, mixed interactive/didactic meetings (vs either alone), meetings targeting less complex behaviour change, and those addressing more serious medical conditions.28
Also known as academic detailing, educational outreach involves the personal meeting of a trained individual and a clinician in their practice setting and the provision of information aimed at altering clinician behaviour. The most common target behaviour is physician prescribing practices.29 A Cochrane review of 69 studies reported a 5.6% mean adjusted risk difference (IQR: 3–9%) in desired practice and a 21% improvement in continuous outcomes (IQR: 11–41%). It has been suggested that surveying clinicians in order to identify barriers prior to intervention design is an important component of this strategy.29 While the one-on-one nature of this intervention can be resource-intensive, a small number of studies have assessed cost-effectiveness and reported benefit related to changes in prescribing behaviours.29
Local opinion leaders are clinicians whose colleagues have nominated them as “educational influencers.” These leadership roles are not based on a formal position but rather on the view of this person being likable, credible and trustworthy.30 These individuals influence others’ attitudes or behaviour in an informal manner through a central position in interpersonal communication networks and an elevated social status. The impact of opinion leaders is typically in the areas of knowledge, attitudes, and social norms within their group of colleagues; however, their effectiveness is dependent on the presence of social networks within professions.30 It has been recognized that opinion leaders are often specific to particular medical conditions and that the individual operating in this role changes over time. Costs associated with this strategy include those related to identifying and training the individual. A Cochrane review, updated in 2019, included 18 studies assessing the impact of opinion leaders. Overall, there was a mean 12% increase in behaviour compliance (IQR: 6–14.5%) with this form of KMb, although significant heterogeneity and a lack of clear intervention description was noted along with the absence of patient-outcome or cost-effectiveness data.30
Audit and feedback initiatives objectively measure clinician performance over a period of time, with the purpose of changing behaviour. The process may also include recommendations for action.31 Behaviour may be measured by assessing medical records or databases or through direct observation and can be facilitated by a variety of internal (e.g., clinician office) and external (e.g., peer, employer, or regulator) processes. It has been reported that health-care providers overestimate their compliance with guidelines.31 Audit and feedback processes are thought to create cognitive dissonance between perceived and actual behaviour as a stimulus for change. Costs related to this strategy include those associated with obtaining and analyzing data and communicating findings. The availability of meaningful data impacts the usefulness of this strategy. A systematic review including 140 studies reported a 4.3% risk difference (IQR: 0.5–16%) among studies with dichotomous outcomes and a 1.3% (IQR: 1.3–28.9%) change in continuous outcomes compared with the control.31 This type of intervention was more effective in cases where baseline performance was low, when delivered by a colleague or supervisor, when delivered more than once, when feedback was provided in both written and verbal forms, and when explicit targets and action plans were included.31
Reminder strategies include specific prompts to remind a clinician of information that will cause them to perform or avoid a particular action in the course of clinical care. Reminders may be provided verbally, on paper, or electronically.32 A Cochrane review identified 28 studies using reminders. Improvements were identified in process outcomes, medication prescribing, vaccination, and test ordering. When pooled, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2–19.2%). This strategy has the benefit of being low-cost. The features of reminders that are most likely to yield benefit have yet to be identified; however, reminders within electronic medical records that alert clinicians while they are delivering care are considered promising.32
A community of practice is defined as a group of people who share expertise and passion and interact in order to deepen their knowledge and expertise.33 While communities of practice can take many forms, it has been suggested that health-care providers have created viable virtual communities of practice using social media.34 Social media includes a range of technology-mediated platforms that allow users to create and share content within virtual communities. A recent scoping review of the use of social media in medical KMb found a large number of articles related to the following platforms: Twitter, blogs, Facebook, podcasts, video archival platforms, and Wikipedia, as well as several others.35 Types of platforms included open social media platforms, interactive multimedia, direct peer-to-peer contact, and closed platforms. The benefits associated with this KMb strategy include real-time speed of sharing, communication across geographic regions, the ability to connect with experienced colleagues,36 and the ability to communicate information outside the typical channels such as conferences and publications.35 The review acknowledged that studies of these strategies typically did not assess cost, although these are thought to be primarily related to the time needed to set up, monitor, and maintain the platforms. Few studies have assessed the direction of effect, and there is some recognition of the impact on professionalism as well as other challenges in this more “open-forum” style of KMb strategy.
Mass media strategies involve dissemination though public channels, such as newspapers, posters, television and radio broadcasts, and websites. A Cochrane review of 20 studies using mass media included campaigns to promote immunization, cancer screening, and HIV education.37 Methodological quality was variable; however, the direction of effect was consistent, and several studies detected statistically significant differences in health behaviours, such as frequency of screening. When observing changes in rates of screening, for example, it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the mass media interventions on health-care provider and consumer behaviours. Cost may be a disadvantage of this strategy; however, a thorough analysis of cost-effectiveness has not been completed.37
Knowledge brokers (KBs) are individuals who facilitate the transmission of knowledge between researchers and research users through human interaction.38 Several roles have been described as part of this strategy. Knowledge brokers act as information managers, by translating and applying knowledge. They act as linkage agents by developing relationships between knowledge creators and users. They act as capacity builders by increasing knowledge users’ skills and increasing their capacity to identify and apply knowledge.39 A systematic review attempted to analyze the effectiveness of this strategy, but insufficient data precluded conclusions.40
Practice-based research networks have been defined as groups of affiliated community-based clinical practices, primarily focused on clinical care, with the goal of investigating questions relevant to community practice.41 They are frequently affiliated with a professional or academic organization and include 15 to several hundred practices.42 Practicing clinicians contribute their experience and perspective in the development of relevant research questions often related to practice patterns, the process of care and clinical outcomes in “real-world” settings. More recently, the potential for PBRNs to serve as communities for learning, to promote evidence-based culture and to facilitate collaboration between researchers and research users is being explored.42 It has been suggested that fewer dissemination efforts are needed when clinicians are involved in planning what to study, how to study it and how to evaluate outcomes.42 There has been an increase in the use of complimentary alternative medicine (CAM)-focused PBRNs globally in the past decade.43
Local opinion leaders have not been formally recognized in the naturopathic profession; however, several individuals who hold leadership roles in various naturopathic organizations and academic institutions fulfill this role. Others have established leadership roles informally through an accumulation of expertise in a particular subject matter and participation in many of the activities listed previously, including teaching CE courses, publishing articles, and social media discussion forums.
A range of KMb strategies have been used in health care with varying rates of effectiveness. Overall, strategies that are active, interpersonal, and tailored to a specific audience in order to meet their unique needs at a particular time are considered advantageous.24 Strategies involving bidirectional collaboration between knowledge creators and knowledge users are consistent with the CIHR Knowledge-to-Action model. A number of KMb strategies are used within the Canadian naturopathic community; however, opportunities exist to increase these efforts.
While naturopathy has been regulated in Ontario since 1925,12 it has been considered an emerging profession in Canada, undergoing several steps towards professionalization in recent decades.55 These include regulation under the Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario and self-regulation or title protection in additional Canadian provinces,13,56 as well as rapid membership growth, from 500 to 2,400, over two decades55 and degree-granting status at the largest Canadian naturopathic college. At the same time, significant efforts to generate knowledge related to naturopathic treatments have occurred. The results of the WNF surveys related to codification of naturopathic knowledge revealed that 75% of all publications, and 97% of peer-reviewed articles, have been created since the year 2000. As in other professions,57 insufficient naturopathy-related research is cited as a barrier.58 This is due to the relatively recent history of naturopathic research and the small number of researchers—a recent survey of 201 Canadian NDs identified 22 currently involved in conducting research.54 Despite the field’s small size, naturopathic research has been described as “fighting above its weight class”59; there is evidence that, with the current steps forward in professionalization, the generation and transfer of knowledge is increasing.
Within the field of implementation science, there is increasing attention to the factors and contexts that influence the effectiveness of KMb. The process by which new knowledge impacts behaviour is thought to proceed through three steps: awareness, acceptance, and, finally, adoption,60 each of which may be impacted by the unique contexts of a health profession. A recent commentary on the topic of IS of complementary medicine (CM) highlighted several considerations that could influence these steps.61 With respect to awareness, one challenge is the underdeveloped professional and organizational infrastructure in many CM professions. Because awareness and persuasion may occur through multiple avenues within an organization (infrastructure, oversight, change agents), community-based practice settings, common in CM, may pose a barrier to increasing awareness and subsequent behaviour change.61 Awareness of new research also depends on the practitioner’s ability and opportunity to search for and review relevant literature. Insufficient skill at identifying and appraising scientific literature, and lack of time, are widely cited barriers among many professions including naturopathic medicine.58,62–64 KMb strategies should be tailored to address barriers to awareness.
With respect to the acceptance phase of knowledge uptake, Canadian NDs have a relatively positive view of evidence, although a spectrum exists, and several barriers related to acceptance have been identified. A qualitative study investigated the perceptions and attitudes of North American and Australian ND students and faculty towards the role and influence of traditional and scientific knowledge in naturopathic education. One of the themes that emerged was the goal of finding a balance between traditional and scientific knowledge. An older study of Australian naturopaths reported the perception that scientific evidence could undermine traditional knowledge by devaluing and eroding its role in clinical practice.65 Consideration of traditional knowledge in the development of KMb strategies is likely to be important. Another qualitative study explored the development of attitudes towards pediatric vaccination among medical, chiropractic, and naturopathic students as a case study of professional enculturation.66 A powerful influence of both formal education and informal socialization was reported. One of the largest influences on student perceptions, in all three professions, was the view of senior or respected individuals in their field, such as professors. It was noted that these influences were also the least likely to be critically examined. These findings may illuminate how historical attitudes may be perpetuated within a profession at the expense of the uptake of new best practices and serve as important considerations for the design of tailored KMb strategies.
Another possible barrier to the acceptance phase of knowledge uptake is the compatibility of evidence with naturopathic principles. The principle “Treat the Cause” suggests a need to look beyond presenting symptoms for factors which may have contributed, or increased susceptibility, to illness.11 These factors include environmental, behavioural, lifestyle, social, genetic, and others. This view of illness having unique origins in different individuals and the importance of tailoring treatment plans to address underlying causes may be considered at odds with KMb strategies such as guidelines, in which a hierarchy of interventions is presented based on their level of evidence. For example, if a patient presented with a concern of headaches that coincided with her menstrual cycle, an ND may recommend an intervention that is targeted at improving hormonal balance rather than another intervention which has more evidence for the treatment of headaches in a general population. The naturopathic principle “Treat the Whole Person” is similar to the concept of patient-centred care, defined as health-care decisions and quality measures which are guided by “an individual’s specific health needs and desired health outcomes” and in which “patients are partners with their health-care providers, and providers treat patients not only from a clinical perspective, but also from an emotional, mental, spiritual, social, and financial perspective.”67 While necessary, research evidence is considered insufficient for clinical decision-making by some proponents of patient-centred care, due to the influence of unique biopsychosocial factors, preferences, beliefs, expectations, and goals68; the importance of KMb strategies that are respectful of patient-centred care has been highlighted in the field of CM.61 While the principles “Treat the Cause” and “Treat the Whole Person” do not preclude the development of guidelines, they may be recognized as possible barriers to acceptance of guidelines, and consideration of the importance attributed to individualization of care may be a relevant consideration in developing guidelines that support clinical practice guided by both naturopathic principles and the best available scientific evidence.
Concerns about potentially limited applicability of “gold-standard” single-intervention RCT findings to real-world clinical situations with multimorbid patients, a population that frequently accesses naturopathic care,69 have been cited in medicine70 and may be a relevant barrier in evidence uptake among NDs as well. The CAM professions are recognized as having an increased awareness of the limitations of studying complex, multi-modal, individualized clinical interventions using research designs such as RCTs.71 Evidence generated using a variety of research methodologies such as whole-systems research may have a higher level of model validity and may increase the relevance of KMb strategies in the naturopathic profession. Ongoing efforts to study naturopathic therapies using pragmatic research designs are warranted.72
While these barriers to KMb uptake are significant, strengths and opportunities also exist. For example, practising in complex organizations has been viewed as a barrier to change.73 Because many NDs work in private practice settings, either in solo practice or with other CM professionals,58 fewer organizational barriers to change may exist. Furthermore, consistent with the bidirectional nature of KMb, the Canadian naturopathic community has demonstrated an interest in participating in the generation of new research. The survey of 201 Canadian NDs that identified 22 individuals presently involved in research also identified an additional 108 who were interested in becoming involved. There is also evidence that additional NDs are involved in KMb activities. An international survey recently investigated the frequency of ND participation in KMb activities.74 The survey was completed by 478 NDs, including 118 Canadians. In response to a question about how respondents share their knowledge, the percentage of individuals who reported engaging in the production of information for different purposes was as follows: publication in scientific journal articles, 18%; publication in naturopathic journal articles, 18%; publication in modern naturopathic clinical text books, 11%; publication in general clinical text books, 9%; for the general public, 73%; product companies, 9%; for patients, 72%; CE events for other clinicians, 28%; clinical training for naturopathic students, 32%. These results are limited by a small sample size and potential self-selection and self-reporting biases. Several research projects undertaken by naturopathic researchers, including whole-practice trials and Delphi studies, have involved collaboration between researchers and clinicians.75–77 These factors may facilitate the generation and implementation of KMb strategies.
There is also evidence that enablers, such as special interest groups, may have contributed to advancement of KMb efforts in sub-groups of NDs. Overall, guidelines are lacking in naturopathic medicine; however, a notable exception is the area of naturopathic cancer care. This progress relative to other clinical areas may be related to the existence of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology, which grants the status of Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO) to individuals with specialized training in oncology.78 This clearly defined group of clinicians may have been a factor in identifying needs for coordinated KMb work; the organization may have also been well-placed to initiate these efforts. A relative abundance of research in the area of naturopathic cancer care may have been a further facilitator. The WNF analysis of peer-reviewed articles identified cancer as the most commonly researched condition. Cancer was the subject of 27% of articles, with breast cancer the most frequently studied type of cancer. As more research evidence is generated in other clinical areas and increased mobilization of condition-specific organizations and networks occur, this may facilitate additional KMb efforts such as evidence synthesis and dissemination.
Many types of KMb strategies may be well suited for use in the naturopathic profession. A number are described below; however, this list is not intended to be exhaustive. Strategies used by other professions or in other geographic regions will be highlighted. Overall, strategies that are likely to be impactful are those addressing some of the barriers discussed in the previous section. Knowledge mobilization strategies should increase connectedness among widely dispersed community practitioners, address barriers, such as lack of time and skill, prioritize pragmatic research, and respect traditional knowledge, patient-centred care, and naturopathic principles.
The Canadian naturopathic profession has undergone significant changes in recent decades with respect to the use of evidence. There has been increased use of a range of KMb strategies aimed at aligning clinical practice with best evidence. However, many opportunities exist to further develop and implement KMb strategies, paying attention to the profession’s unique characteristics and barriers. This review identifies established KMb strategies that are used successfully and highlights unique considerations and opportunities for KMb in the Canadian naturopathic community.
1Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada; University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
2University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
3Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada; University Technology, Sydney, Australia; National Centre for Naturopathic Medicine at Southern Cross University, Linsmore, Australia; Pacific College of Health and Science, New York, NY, USA
We have read and understood the CAND Journal’s policy on conflicts of interest and declare that we have none.
This research did not receive any funding.
1. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.
Crossref PubMed PMC
2. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–520.
Crossref PubMed PMC
3. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24.
4. McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010;5:16.
Crossref PubMed PMC
5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Knowledge translation. Accessed December 2020. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29529.html
6. Guidelines for Effective Knowledge Mobilization, Social Sciences and Hummanities Research Council. Accessed December 10, 2020. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/knowledge_mobilisation-mobilisation_des_connaissances-eng.aspx
7. Ven AHVD, Johnson PE. Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev. 2006;31(4):802–821.
8. Bowen SJ, Graham ID. From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(Suppl 1):S3–8.
9. Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):1.
10. Logan AC, Goldenberg JZ, Guiltinan J, Seely D, Katz DL. North American naturopathic medicine in the 21st century: time for a seventh guiding principle—Scientia Critica. Explore (NY). 2018;14(5):367–372.
11. World Naturopathic Federation White Paper: Naturopathic Philosophies, Principles and Theories 2017. http://worldnaturopathicfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/WNF_White_Paper_June-2017.pdf
12. Boon H. Regulation of complementary/alternative medicine: a Canadian perspective. Complement Ther Med. 2002;10(1):14–19.
13. CAND Website. About naturopathic medicine. Accessed December 2, 2020. https://www.cand.ca/naturopathic-medicine-today/
14. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72.
Crossref PubMed PMC
15. Majeed A, Ferguson J, Field J. Prescribing of beta-2 agonists and inhaled steroids in England: trends between 1992 and 1998, and association with material deprivation, chronic illness and asthma mortality rates. J Public Health Med. 1999;21(4):395–400.
16. Aucoin M, Leach MJ, Cooley K. Evidence-based practice attitudes, skills, and usage among Canadian naturopathic doctors: a summary of the evidence and directions for the future. CAND Journal. 2021;28(3):9–13.
17. Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–170.
18. Marriott S, Palmer C, Lelliott P. Disseminating healthcare information: getting the message across. Qual Health Care. 2000;9(1):58–62.
Crossref PubMed PMC
19. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966–1998. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl 2):S14–20.
20. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):II2–45.
21. Lomas J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: who should do what? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:226–235.
22. Knapp JF, Simon SD, Sharma V. Does active dissemination of evidence result in faster knowledge transfer than passive diffusion?: An analysis of trends of the management of pediatric asthma and croup in US emergency departments from 1995 to 2009. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2015;31(3):190–196.
23. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J, Knowledge Transfer Study Group. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221–248, 171–222.
Crossref PubMed PMC
24. Pentland D, Forsyth K, Maciver D, et al. Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: integrative literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(7):1408–1425.
25. Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(3):CD005470.
26. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group: Data collection checklist. EPOC measures for review authors. 2002.
27. Giguere A, Zomahoun HTV, Carmichael PH, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD004398.
28. Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(2):CD003030.
29. O’Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(4):CD000409.
30. Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, Grimshaw JM. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;6:CD000125.
31. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259.
32. Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay CR, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J. The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(3):CD001096.
33. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W. Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard Business School Press. 2002.
34. Rolls K, Hansen M, Jackson D, Elliott D. How health care professionals use social media to create virtual communities: an integrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e166.
Crossref PubMed PMC
35. Chan TM, Dzara K, Dimeo SP, Bhalerao A, Maggio LA. Social media in knowledge translation and education for physicians and trainees: a scoping review. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9(1):20–30.
36. Steele SR, Arshad S, Bush R, et al. Social media is a necessary component of surgery practice. Surgery. 2015;158(3):857–862.
37. Grilli R, Ramsay C, Minozzi S. Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(1):CD000389.
38. Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ. 2007;334(7585):129–132.
Crossref PubMed PMC
39. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evid Policy. 2009;5(3):267–279.
Crossref PubMed PMC
40. Bornbaum CC, Kornas K, Peirson L, Rosella LC. Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:162.
Crossref PubMed PMC
41. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks. Accessed December 8, 2020. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/primary/pbrn/index.html
42. Mold JW, Peterson KA. Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(Suppl 1):S12–S20.
Crossref PubMed PMC
43. Lee H, Peng W, Steel A, Reid R, Sibbritt D, Adams J. Complementary and alternative medicine research in practice-based research networks: a critical review. Complement Ther Med. 2019;43:7–19.
44. World Naturopathic Federation. Research written by naturopaths/naturopathic doctors. 2019. http://worldnaturopathicfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/WNF_Research-Written-by-Naturopaths-Naturopathic-Doctors.pdf
45. World Naturopathic Federation Health Technology Assessment. 2021. Accessed December 2020. http://worldnaturopathicfederation.org/health-technology-assessment-hta/.
46. World Naturopathic Federation. A comprehensive listing of books written by naturopaths/naturopathic doctors. 2019. http://worldnaturopathicfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Book-Project.pdf
47. Greenlee H, DuPont-Reyes MJ, Balneaves LG, et al. Clinical practice guidelines on the evidence-based use of integrative therapies during and after breast cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):194–232.
Crossref PubMed PMC
48. Deng GE, Rausch SM, Jones LW, et al. Complementary therapies and integrative medicine in lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143(Suppl 5):e420S–e436S.
49. Knowledge in Integrative Oncology Website. Accessed November 29, 2020. https://www.knowintegrativeoncology.org/
50. World Naturopathic Federation. Naturopathic Journal Report. In preparation. 2020.
51. Collaborative Education. Accessed November 22, 2020. http://www.collaborativeeducation.ca/
52. BRB CE Group. Accessed December 2020. https://brbcegroup.com/
53. The Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities. 2020. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://www.fnmra.org/NANCEAC-Background-and-Purpose
54. Aucoin M, Cooley K, Knee C, Tsui T, Grondin D. Naturopathy special interest group research capacity and needs assessment survey. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(2):189–195.
55. Verhoef MJ, Boon HS, Mutasingwa DR. The scope of naturopathic medicine in Canada: an emerging profession. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(2):409–417.
56. Ng JY. The regulation of complementary and alternative medicine professions in Ontario, Canada. Integr Med Res. 2020;9(1):12–16.
57. Kawchuk G, Bruno P, Busse JW, et al. Knowledge transfer within the Canadian chiropractic community. Part 1: understanding evidence-practice Gaps. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2013;57(2):111–115.
58. Leach M, Aucoin M, Cooley K. A national cross-sectional survey of Canadian naturopathic physician doctors’ engagement, preparedness and perceptions of evidence-based practice. Submitted to PLOS ONE. 2021.
59. Weeks J. The early movement for research evidence in modern naturopathy: fighting above its weight class. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(2):125–128.
60. Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.” J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005;18(6):541–545.
61. Steel A, Rapport F, Adams J. Towards an implementation science of complementary health care: some initial considerations for guiding safe, effective clinical decision-making. Adv Integr Med. 2018;5(1):5–8.
62. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458–1465.
63. Schneider MJ, Evans R, Haas M, et al. US chiropractors’ attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional national survey. Chiropr Man Therap. 2015;23:16.
64. Sundberg T, Leach MJ, Thomson OP, Austin P, Fryer G, Adams J. Attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among UK osteopaths: a national cross-sectional survey. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):439.
Crossref PubMed PMC
65. Steel A, Adams J. The interface between tradition and science: naturopaths’ perspectives of modern practice. J Altern Complement Med. 2011;17(10):967–972.
66. McMurtry A, Wilson K, Clarkin C, et al. The development of vaccination perspectives among chiropractic, naturopathic and medical students: a case study of professional enculturation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(5):1291–1302.
67. Catalyst N. What is patient-centered care? NEJM Catalyst. 2017;3(1).
68. Montori VM, Brito JP, Murad MH. The optimal practice of evidence-based medicine: incorporating patient preferences in practice guidelines. JAMA. 2013;310(23):2503–2504.
69. Chamberlin SR, Oberg E, Hanes DA, Calabrese C. Naturopathic practice at North American academic institutions: description of 300,483 visits and comparison to conventional primary care. Integr Med Insights. 2014;9:IMI.S14124.
70. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N, Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
Crossref PubMed PMC
71. Verhoef MJ, Lewith G, Ritenbaugh C, Boon H, Fleishman S, Leis A. Complementary and alternative medicine whole systems research: beyond identification of inadequacies of the RCT. Complement Ther Med. 2005;13(3):206–212.
72. Myers SP, Vigar V. The state of the evidence for whole-system, multi-modality naturopathic medicine: a systematic scoping review. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(2):141–168.
Crossref PubMed PMC
73. Scott SD, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7:70.
Crossref PubMed PMC
74. Steel A, Leach M, Brosnan C, Ward V, Lloyd I. Naturopaths’ mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2021;21(1):205.
Crossref PubMed PMC
75. Seely D, Szczurko O, Cooley K, et al. Naturopathic medicine for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ. 2013;185(9):E409–416.
Crossref PubMed PMC
76. Goldenberg JZ, Steel A, Day A, Yap C, Bradley R, Cooley K. Naturopathic approaches to irritable bowel syndrome: protocol for a prospective observational study in academic teaching clinics. Integr Med Res. 2018;7(3):279–286.
Crossref PubMed PMC
77. Goldenberg JZ, Ward L, Day A, Cooley K. Naturopathic approaches to irritable bowel syndrome—a Delphi study. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(2):227–233.
78. OncANP Website. FABNO Certification. Accessed December 5, 2020. https://oncanp.org/fabno-certification/
79. Wardle J, Steel A, Casteleijn D, Bowman D. An Evidence-Based Overview of Naturopathic Practice in Australia. Vol 31. Cambridge Publishing; 2019.
80. Schloss J, McIntyre E, Steel A, et al. Lessons from outside and within: exploring advancements in methodology for naturopathic medicine clinical research. J Altern Complement Med. 2019;25(2):135–140.
Crossref PubMed PMC
81. Steel A, Sibbritt D, Schloss J, et al. An overview of the practitioner research and collaboration initiative (PRACI): a practice-based research network for complementary medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):87.
Crossref PubMed PMC
82. Bussieres A, Cote P, French S, et al. Creating a chiropractic practice-based research network (PBRN): enhancing the management of musculoskeletal care. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014;58(1):8–15.
83. Hunter J, Leach M, Braun L, Bensoussan A. An interpretive review of consensus statements on clinical guideline development and their application in the field of traditional and complementary medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2017;17(1):116.
Crossref PubMed PMC
84. Bryans R, Decina P, Descarreaux M, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014;37(1):42–63.
85. Physical Therapy Knowledge Broker. University of British Columbia. Accessed December 12, 2020. https://physicaltherapy.med.ubc.ca/physical-therapy-knowledge-broker/
Correspondence to: Monique Aucoin, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, 1255 Sheppard Ave E, Toronto, ON M2K 1E2, Canada. E-mail: email@example.com
To cite: Aucoin M, Newton G, Cooley K. Knowledge mobilization in the Canadian naturopathic community. CAND Journal. 2022;29(1):7-16. https:/doi.org/10.54434/candj.103
Received: 29 November 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2022; Published: 24 March 2022
© 2022 Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors. For permissions, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
CAND Journal | Volume 29, No. 1, March 2022
(Return to Top)