BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2015, 15:312
doi:10.1186/s12906-015-0846-6
Published: 7 September 2015
Published: 7 September 2015
Abstract
Background
In line with recent World Health Organization recommendations, many jurisdictions
are taking steps to regulate practitioners of traditional, complementary and alternative
medicine (TCAM). Previous studies have examined TCAM practitioners’ generally-supportive
views about professional regulation; however, little research has been conducted on
TCAM practitioners’ experiences and perspectives amidst an active regulatory process.
In 2006 and 2007, the province of Ontario, Canada announced it would grant self-regulatory
status to three TCAM practitioner groups - homeopaths, naturopaths and Chinese medicine
practitioners/acupuncturists.
Methods
In 2011 and 2012, part-way through each group’s regulatory process, we surveyed all
practitioners from these three groups (n = 1047) that could be identified from public registries and professional associations.
The data presented here are derived from the sub-sample of homeopaths (n = 234), naturopaths (n = 273) and Chinese medicine practitioners/acupuncturists (n = 181) who provided answers to an open-ended question about their opinions of the
regulatory process at the end of the survey. An inductive, thematic analysis of qualitative
survey responses was conducted.
Results
Survey responses affirmed a pro-regulatory stance across all groups, but revealed
considerable ‘worry’ amongst practitioners as to how the regulations might be implemented.
Four primary ‘worry-related’ themes emerged: a) regulation’s potential administrative
and financial burden on practitioners; b) scope-related concerns; c) implementation
of fair registration standards; and d) whether regulation might erode the groups’
distinctive worldviews. Some occupationally-specific concerns appeared related to
each group’s particular stage of professionalization. Other ‘worries’ may be related
to the relative marginality of TCAM practitioner groups within biomedically-dominant
national health care systems, and the possibility that inter-professional hierarchies
may be emerging between particular TCAM groups. Specific concerns around overlapping
practice scopes between TCAM and other professions raised questions about the implementation
of non-monopolistic regulatory models such as Ontario’s.
Conclusions
Overall, this study will help inform regulators and TCAM practitioner groups to navigate
the unique challenge of regulating health care providers long excluded from national
health care systems, who frequently work from within paradigms distinct from mainstream
biomedicine.
