Skip to main content

Table 5 Characteristics of global regulation of naturopathic practitioners

From: Characteristics of global naturopathic education, regulation, and practice frameworks: results from an international survey

NATUROPATHIC REGISTRATION/LICENSING CHARACTERISTICS Total (n=33)a No regulation (n=28)b Title protection (n=18)b Defined scope of practice (n=27)b Other regulation (n=7)b
N % N % N % N % N %
Profession entry requirement to be registered
Direct entry based on qualification completion only 6 18.2 1 3.6 1 5.6 5 18.5 1 14.3
Direct entry based on qualification from a naturopathic education institution 10 30.3 1 3.6 4 22.2 6 22.2 4 57.1
Entry based on completion from naturopathic institution plus board examination 19 57.6 2 7.1 13 72.2 19 70.3 1 14.3
Entry based on success in board examination without any specific qualifications 2 6.1 1 3.6 2 11.1 1 3.7 1 14.3
Other 4 12.1 1 3.6 2 11.1 3 11.1 1 14.3
Organization that administers board examination for naturopathic regulation
Government Department or Agency 2 6.1 1 3.6 2 11.1 2 7.4 0 0.0
Delegated Authority on Behalf of Government 3 9.1 1 3.6 3 16.7 3 11.1 1 14.3
Independent Academic Accreditation Agency 2 6.1 0 0.0 1 5.6 2 7.4 0 0.0
Naturopathic Educational Institution 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Naturopathic Organization Independent of Naturopathic Institution 7 21.2 0 0.0 5 27.8 7 25.9 0 0.0
Other 5 15.1 0 0.0 2 11.1 5 18.5 0 0.0
Requirements to sit board naturopathic registration/licensing examination
No Entry Requirements 1 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.7 0 0.0
Entry Based on Experience or Equivalence Qualifications 2 6.1 1 3.6 2 11.1 2 7.4 0 0.0
Direct Entry Based on Qualification (no Institutional Accreditation required) 1 3.0 0 0.0 1 5.6 1 3.7 0 0.0
Direct Entry Based on an Accredited Institution only 14 42.4 1 3.6 9 50.0 14 51.9 1 14.3
Organization responsible for naturopathic registration/licensing approval
Government official (e.g. Minister of Health) 14 42.4 3 10.7 8 44.4 11 40.7 4 57.1
A committee or board 2 6.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7.4 0 0.0
An existing regulatory body for other health professions 4 12.1 0 0.0 2 11.1 4 14.8 0 0.0
An existing regulatory body for naturopathy 7 21.2 0 0.0 5 27.8 6 22.2 1 14.3
Other 6 18.2 0 0.0 3 16.7 4 14.8 2 28.6
Presence of naturopathy specific regulatory board
Yes 21 63.6 2 7.1 13 72.2 19 70.4 4 57.1
No 11 33.3 0 0.0 4 22.2 7 25.9 3 42.9
Unsure 1 3.0 1 3.6 1 5.6 1 3.7 0 0.0
Characteristics of regulatory board for naturopathy
Standalone organization with no government affiliation 6 18.2 0 0.0 2 11.1 4 14.8 2 28.6
Independent organization affiliated with government 9 27.3 0 0.0 3 16.7 8 29.6 2 28.6
Independent organization affiliated with a professional association 2 6.1 2 7.1 2 11.1 2 7.4 1 14.3
Government department 13 39.4 1 3.6 10 55.6 12 44.4 1 14.3
Professional association 2 6.1 0 0.0 1 5.6 0 0.0 1 14.3
Naturopathic regulation sole purpose of regulatory organization
Yes 18 54.5 2 7.1 9 50.0 15 55.6 5 71.4
No 10 30.3 0 0.0 7 38.9 9 33.3 1 14.3
Unsure 4 12.1 1 3.6 2 11.1 2 7.4 1 14.3
Composition of committee of regulatory board
Naturopaths/Naturopathic practitioners 24 72.7 3 10.7 15 83.3 22 81.5 4 57.1
Public/community representatives 20 60.6 2 7.1 13 72.2 19 70.4 2 28.6
Public servants 3 9.1 0 0.0 2 11.1 2 7.4 1 14.3
Government officials 13 39.4 1 3.6 8 44.4 12 44.4 2 28.6
Independent representatives of other health professions 9 27.3 3 10.7 7 38.9 8 29.6 2 28.6
Representatives of other health professional bodies (e.g. professional associations) 7 21.2 1 3.6 3 16.7 6 22.2 1 14.3
Representatives of naturopathic professional associations 13 39.4 2 7.1 7 38.9 9 33.3 6 85.7
Representatives of naturopathic educational institutions 8 24.2 2 7.1 3 16.7 6 22.2 4 57.1
  1. a.Data restricted to 33 respondents who reported regulation by ‘title protection’, ‘defined scope of practice’ or ‘other’. b. Some respondents reported multiple regulation types including ‘no regulation’ which is reported
\