Table 2.

Summary information of included studies reporting prevalence of use of naturopathy in the previous 12 months

WHO region	Country (WHO region)	Author	Economic status	Design (measure)	Year data collected	Population	Naturopathy descriptor	Setting (eg, urban, rural)	N	Duration of exposure	Overall use (%)
European	England	Hunt et al25	Nationally representative	National Cohort (survey)	2005	General population	Naturopathy	Both	7630	Previous 12 months	2*
	Switzerland	Klein et al26	Nationally representative	National Cohort (survey)	2007, 2012	General population	Naturopathy	Both	2007: 14,432 2012: 18 357	Previous 12 months	2007: n=1185; 7.7 2012: n=1597; 7.7
Eastern Mediterranean	Israel	Shmueli et al27	Subjective economic status ‘very good’ or ‘good’ range from M=0.49 to M=0.58	Cross-sectional (survey)	1993, 2000, 2007	General population	Naturopathy	Urban	1993: 2003 2000: 2505 2007: 752	Previous 12 months	1993: n=400; 20 2000: n=425; 17 2007: n=135; 18
Region of the Americas	Canada	Esmail30	Evenly distributed (<US$20 000 to US$79 999)	Cross-sectional (structured telephone interviews)	1997, 2006, 2016	General population	Naturopathy	National	1997: 1500 2006: 2000 2016: 2000	Previous 12 months	1997: n=45; 3 2006: n=80; 4 2016: n=100; 5%
	USA	Su and Li28	Nationally representative	Cross-sectional survey (survey)	2002, 2007	General population	Naturopathy	National	2002: 30 267 2007: 20 769	Previous 12 months	2002: n=76; 0.25 2007: n=71; 0.34
		Clarke et al29	Nationally representative	Cross-sectional (survey)	2012	General population	Naturopathy	National	38 280	Previous 12 months	n=153; 0.4
Western Pacific	Australia	McIntyre et al31	Manageability on household income; impossible, difficult all/some of time (58.6%), not too bad / easy (41.4%)	National Cross- sectional (survey)	2017	General population	Naturopathy and western herbal medicine	Both Urban: 72.6% Inner regional: 18.7% Outer reg/remote: 8.7%	2019	Previous 12 months	n=126; 6.2

*Estimated figure based on interpretation of the chart included in the article.