massage and bodywork professionals
The Misuse of the Phrase "Evidence-Based" in Course Descriptions
Therapists should be aware that there is a good likelihood that this term has (and will continue to be) used as a marketing tool for course descriptions. I've seen *evidence* of this for at least 3 different courses. One was for for a modality in which the general claims are most definitely not evidence-based. The others were for online courses in which some research articles were referred to which were obviously cherry picked.
I don't want to go into describing what an evidence-based practice is since this has already been covered in other discussions on this site. I suggest that anyone that is unclear about this read this description of it (with attention paid to "Best available research evidence (as determined by critical appraisal)")
What I do want to highlight is that there may be some teachers that are:
- not really aware of what "evidence-based" means
- don't really care what it means
- have their own definition (e.g.I have enough *evidence* in my practice to teach it and therefore I can use that term)
- OK with cherry picking studies and calling a course "evidence-based". This is probably one of the worst things any educator can do.
- use it as a marketing strategy to try to lure therapists who want to be well informed by research in order to improve their therapeutic decision making (in which case, the therapist should be commended, but be aware of what may be happening).
There is a lot of freedom given to teachers within our profession as far as how things can be described and taught, along with what claims can be made. I'm not saying that all or most teachers don't care, but the fact that I've seen courses that are not evidence-based means that at least some are doing this and there will more than likely be more join them.
My advice to any therapist is that if you want to really seek out teachers that are evidence-based, be extra careful when coming across the term in course descriptions. Take a research literacy course and be sure to become well accustomed to be able to seek out the best available evidence for whatever modality (or massage for a specific condition, which we should be doing in our practices anyway - the only problem is that most of us aren't taught to do so) before investing money and time in a class.
Perhaps down the road there will be some mechanism in place that will prevent the use of the term in such a loose way, but if not, then consumers of courses should be extra vigilant.
Cheers.
Vlad
Boris,
I didn't realize that I feel superior to people on this site. I was aiming to try to let people know something - reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based" to anyone that knows what the phrase means. But thanks for letting me know that I have nothing to offer. I'll take your word for it. Since no one else seems to be saying anything, I'll take it that you're right and my interpretation of the phrase is obviously wrong, along with any definitions of it that I've read. It's good to know.
Thanks again. Good luck in your classes.
May 30, 2011
Boris Prilutsky
even we understood meaning of "evidence-based"differently, at discussion I have explained my understanding.you start this discussion supposedly to help massage therapists not to take" false"classes which is most likely can be useful topic to discuss. But finally and first time during this discussion you said:"I was aiming to try to let people know something - reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based" to anyone that knows what the phrase means."
To achieving results is not "about reflexology could never be classified as "evidence-based"" but about to place your hand
and provide real stimulation to awake positive changes in functions of organs and system. Even if you do not believe that by stimulating particular areas/zons on foot one corresponding with particular internal organs, please be aware that massage on toes and foot is known in conventional massage as an biologically active area to depress sympathetic activities.and this fact will be not changed if you have read about it or not.
regards.
Boris
May 30, 2011
Noel Norwick
Vlad: FYI - Your position is not helped by use of Ad Hominem attacks [i.e. "your craziness" & "evil people"]. I respectfully suggest that in future you consider identifying your foundational premises and offering logically consistent responses to questions raised by people who wish to better understand your perspective and opinions.
Though one may reasonably disagree with Reflexology's past & currently proposed causal mechanism(s), working on the feet (and in some variants, the hands and ears), its practitioners produce positive client outcomes with sufficient regularity that this modality can logically be considered and defended as being "evidence based".
Do you disagree that the scientific method requires one to propose testable hypothesis, test them, and then use the finding to continually refine one's understanding of reality's causal mechanisms? Or, that "evidence-based" practice is subject to constant change in light of new information uncovered by diligent research and clinical findings?
Additionally, even if you truly believe massaging the feet cannot initiate a physiologic response, you would do well to note that mainstream medicine considers the placebo/nocebo effect to be evidence based and worthy of serous research.
May 31, 2011