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 …
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
-
-
You could make that same statement about any profession. AFAIK the review was intended solely as an update of original review to see if or how much evidence had moved on since that date. So it wound up importing same issues as original
-
Mmmm but I'm really not sure how they could conclude what they did based on the evidence they found. As far as I can tell, the conclusion should've been that the evidence is poor and no robust conclusions can be drawn
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is a problem with Australian insurance health policy - it's "all or nothing". This differs from others (e.g. US, Germany) where benefits can be limited to condition specificity (e.g chiro only for MSK). Would improve Oz health systems immeasurably if they could introduce it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It creates issues the other way too. The gov review said Buteyko potentially effective in asthma, but because it was condition-specific it prohibited it from insurance. Meaning it's locked out even as part of a package of care where it may be useful. Ditto yoga, tai chi etc
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.