Nadine Ijaz · PLoS ONE 2021 · cross-sectional survey · n=1205

A cross-sectional workforce survey of three traditional and complementary medicine professions in Ontario, Canada

Cited 10 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey (graded by design analogy for non-clinical workforce research)

OpenAlex W3163553871 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250223 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A cross-sectional workforce survey was administered to naturopaths, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) / acupuncture practitioners, and homeopaths in Ontario, Canada. The survey assessed demographics, practice characteristics, and self-reported income, and compared findings across the three occupations and against external workforce data.

What was found

The survey response rate was 23.3% (n = 1,205). TCM/acupuncture had a lower proportion of female practitioners (57.9%) than naturopathy (77.1%) or homeopathy (78.3%). Naturopaths were younger and reported fewer years of clinical experience. International training was reported by approximately half of TCM/acupuncture practitioners (predominantly in East Asia) and nearly one-third of homeopaths (predominantly in South Asia). Multilingual practices were reported by 58.9% of TCM/acupuncture practitioners, 57.6% of homeopaths, and 19.1% of naturopaths. Homeopaths worked fewer hours and saw fewer patients per week. Mean self-reported incomes were $63,834 (SD $57,101) for naturopaths, $45,624 (SD $44,081) for TCM/acupuncture practitioners, and $29,230 (SD $41,645) for homeopaths. Holding other variables constant, internationally trained practitioners earned one-third less than Canadian-trained peers.

Why it matters

This study documents substantial demographic and practice differences among traditional and complementary medicine providers in Ontario, highlighting their role in serving immigrant communities alongside substantial income disparities for internationally trained practitioners.

Limits

The low response rate (23.3%) introduces potential non-response and selection bias. All outcome measures, including income and patient volumes, were self-reported without independent verification. The findings are cross-sectional and geographically confined to Ontario.

Cited by