First, we disagree with McDowell et al’s statement that we intended to extrapolate a very small survey finding to the entire New Zealand physiotherapy population.
The aim of our review [
1] was to investigate New Zealand healthcare professionals’ (including physiotherapists as a part of this population) practice of, attitudes toward, and knowledge about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Of the 11 included studies in this review, there was only one study (i.e. McDowell et al.) [
2] evaluating New Zealand physiotherapists’ practice, attitudes, and knowledge of CAM. This single study explored New Zealand physiotherapists’ opinions and practice
exclusively on acupuncture/dry needling, and
exclusively for its use during pregnancy. The background of this study has been well described throughout the manuscript. Taking our manuscript in context, the results of our review should be interpreted in the way that reflects the perspectives of the
study respondents (rather than the whole professional population). The overall conclusions of our review are robust in that these are based on 11 studies of moderate to high quality, and included a total of 2,060 New Zealand healthcare professionals, including general practitioners (GPs), Plunket nurses, midwifes, pharmacists, specialists, and physiotherapists.
Secondly, as acknowledged by McDowell et al., theirs is a small survey study with a very low response rate; consequently, we have addressed the potential limitations of our paper in the last paragraph of the Discussion [
1].
It is important to note that the survey response rate was not reported in their original paper, neither was the specific population size of their targeted survey participants. This is important insofar as the current assertions by McDowell et al., concerning statistical extrapolation error does not reflect any supporting references in their original paper.
Thirdly, we acknowledge the potential interests of Jillian McDowell and Susan Heather Kohut being executive members and tutors for the Physiotherapy Acupuncture Association of New Zealand. But the current state of acupuncture practice in New Zealand by physiotherapists (as detailed in their correspondence) is not the main focus of our review, which aimed to provide an overview of New Zealand healthcare professionals’ practice of, attitudes toward, and knowledge about CAM. We would also suggest that the authors’ references to regulation of physiotherapy acupuncture in New Zealand are potentially misleading: firstly acupuncture is regulated for physiotherapy practitioners in New Zealand (it is considered to be part of ‘general scope’); secondly practising within a defined field does not represent some form of advanced or specialist practice as seems to be suggested (these are specific scopes of practice); finally the term ‘physiotherapy acupuncturists’ is not recognised as a protected title or designation by the Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand as the regulator.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.