Response by critics to updated review of "whole practice" naturopathy evidence is interesting. Authors explicitly state they use same methods as gov review conducted 6yrs ago. Critics lauded rigour of gov review, but claim methods in this review are flawed https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-08/southern-cross-university-naturopathy-study/10879232 …
I guess the challenge there is what is defined as "whole practice". This review seems to have taken an extremely broad approach, but I'm not sure that helps the case given how broad the interventions were
-
-
If you use a term like "whole practice" then by definition that is going to be broad. You can't look at studies of naturopathic practise and say that only certain elements should be considered relevant to naturopathy because that fits your own perception (as Dwyer did in article)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Whole practice" as a tool to measure effectiveness highly problematic IMO Even in narrow fields gov review took an unusual "whole practice" interpretation - for example, in their review of herbal medicine practice they stated that evidence for herbal medicines was not relevant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ultimately it comes down to how we evaluate clinical practice. Do we measure effectiveness of what they actually do, or do we measure effectiveness of who they are (whole practice)? I'm in the former camp - and won't change my mind depending on whether I get the answer I want
-
That's fair imo, but comes back to the purpose of the review, surely? If we cannot evaluate "naturopathy" as a clinical practice, then there definitely shouldn't be a rebate for "naturopathy", it should be for the specific practices that can be assessed as effective
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.