Complementary Therapy Evidence: 5 Powerful Steps to Explain It in 60 Seconds by Jayney Goddard MSc, PG Dip Ed, FCMA, FRSM. Founder and President, The Complementary Medical Association.

It happens in clinics, at networking events, at the school gate and over Sunday lunch. Someone leans in, curious but a little sceptical, and asks: “So does it actually work?”

For many Practitioners, this is the moment their confidence wobbles. They know their therapy helps – they see it every week – but in the moment they either freeze, ramble through a dozen studies, or retreat into vague reassurance. None of these responses builds trust, and none of them turns a curious person into a client.

The good news is that explaining the complementary therapy evidence for your discipline is a skill, not a talent. With a clear structure, you can give an answer that is honest, accurate and compelling in about a minute. Here is how.

Why 60 Seconds Matters When it Comes to Complementary Therapy Evidence

Most people asking about evidence are not looking for a literature review. They want to know whether it is worth their time, money and hope. A short, well-structured answer shows that you know your subject, that you respect their question, and that you are a professional who can be trusted. A long, defensive answer suggests the opposite – even when the evidence behind it is strong.

The 5 Powerful Steps

Step 1: Hear the Question Behind the Question

“Does it work?” rarely means “Please summarise the global research base.” More often it means “Could it help me, with my back, my sleep, my stress?” Before you answer, take a breath and, where appropriate, ask a simple clarifying question: “Is there something in particular you’re hoping it might help with?”

This one move changes everything. It turns a challenge into a conversation, and it tells you exactly which piece of evidence to reach for.

Step 2: Lead With One Strong, Relevant Finding

Resist the urge to list everything you know. Choose the single most robust and relevant piece of evidence for the person in front of you, and lead with it.

Acupuncture offers a good illustration. A major individual patient data meta-analysis pooled raw data from 39 high-quality randomised trials involving 20,827 patients with chronic pain. It found acupuncture was superior to both sham acupuncture and no-acupuncture controls for musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache and shoulder pain, with effects that persisted over time.¹ In the UK, NICE guidance now advises that a course of acupuncture or dry needling can be considered for people aged 16 and over with chronic primary pain.²

One finding like that, stated clearly, is far more persuasive than ten mentioned in passing. Every Practitioner should know the strongest systematic review or guideline relevant to their discipline – and the conditions it applies to – well enough to state it in two sentences.

Step 3: Be Honest About What the Complementary Therapy Evidence Does Not Show

Many Practitioners worry that admitting uncertainty will undermine them. The research suggests otherwise. In a series of five experiments involving 5,780 people, including a field experiment on the BBC News website, communicating uncertainty about facts and figures led to only a small reduction in trust – and the effect was smallest when uncertainty was expressed clearly and specifically rather than in vague terms.³

In practice, that means you can say something like: “The research is strongest for chronic pain. For some other conditions it’s more limited, so I’d be honest with you about what we can realistically expect.” Honesty of this kind is not a weakness. It is a mark of professionalism, it protects your clients, and it sets you apart from anyone who overclaims.

If the research base for your discipline is still developing, say so plainly – and then move to what you can speak to: the safety of your approach, your training and standards, and what clients typically report.

Step 4: Translate Complementary Therapy Evidence Into Plain, Concrete Language

“A statistically significant standardised mean difference” means nothing to most people. Research on health communication shows that patients, journalists and even doctors routinely misunderstand statistics when they are presented in abstract or relative terms, and that clear, concrete framing dramatically improves understanding.⁴

So translate. Instead of quoting effect sizes, say: “Across thousands of people in good-quality trials, those who had acupuncture reported less pain than those who didn’t – and the benefit was still there months later.” Avoid inflated relative figures such as “50% better” unless you can explain what they mean in real terms. Plain language is not dumbing down; it is respect for your listener.

Step 5: Bring It Back to Them

Evidence-based practice was never meant to be research alone. In its classic definition, it means integrating the best available external evidence with individual clinical expertise – and with the needs and preferences of the person being treated.⁵

Close your answer by connecting all three: what the research shows, what you see in your own practice, and what a sensible next step would look like for them. For example: “In my practice, people with long-standing back pain often notice a difference within a few sessions. A good way to find out if it suits you is to try a short course and review how you’re feeling together.”

This keeps the conversation grounded, realistic and focused on the person – and it gives them an easy, low-pressure way to say yes.

Putting It All Together: A 60-Second Example

Here is how the five steps might sound for an acupuncturist asked the question at a networking event:

“Great question – is there anything in particular you’re thinking of? … Back pain, OK. That’s actually where the evidence is strongest. A large analysis of nearly 21,000 people in high-quality trials found acupuncture reduced chronic pain more than both sham treatment and usual care, and NICE now recommends it can be considered for chronic pain. It isn’t a cure-all, and for some conditions the research is more limited, so I always say that upfront. In my clinic, people with back pain often notice a change within a few sessions, so a short course with a review is a sensible way to find out if it’s right for you.”

That is well under a minute: curious, specific, honest, clear and personal. Whatever your discipline, the structure stays the same – only the evidence changes.

From One Conversation to a Room Full of People

Once you can explain your evidence confidently to one person, you are only a short step away from explaining it to twenty, fifty or a hundred. My own MSc research into what makes Practitioners thrive found that giving expert public talks was the common thread among genuinely successful Practitioners.

That finding is the foundation of Fully Confident – Fully Booked: Fill Your Practice Through the Power of Public Speaking, my full-day live workshop in Kensington, London, on Monday 16 November, co-presented with my wonderful colleague Angie Litvinoff. You will leave with the confidence to speak, a ready-made evidence-based presentation to deliver, and a clear plan for finding audiences. Places are limited to a small group, so if this is the year you want to step forward, find out more and book your place here.

And if you are a member of the public looking for a qualified, professional Practitioner who meets high standards, you can find a CMA registered Practitioner here.

References

1. Vickers AJ, Vertosick EA, Lewith G, et al. Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Pain. 2018;19(5):455–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2017.11.005
2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain. NICE guideline NG193. 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng193
3. van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020;117(14):7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117
4. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2007;8(2):53–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x
5. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Further Reading

Read about a wide variety of therapies, conditions, remedies, and more in the CMA blog archive read about a wide variety of therapies, conditions, remedies, and more in the CMA blog archive.

About the Author

Jayney Goddard MSc, PG Dip Ed, FCMA, FRSM is the Founder and President of The Complementary Medical Association (The CMA), the world’s leading professional body for complementary medicine. With more than three decades at the forefront of complementary and integrative healthcare, Jayney has dedicated her career to raising professional standards across the sector and to championing rigorous, evidence-based natural approaches to health and longevity. She is the author of several best-sellers, including Rewind Your Body Clock – the Complete Natural Guide to a Happier, Healthier, Younger You (Watkins/Penguin Random House), which debuted on the Amazon charts at No. 1 among ALL books on the platform. Jayney is a sought-after international speaker and a passionate advocate for the safe, ethical integration of complementary medicine within mainstream healthcare. Through The CMA, she supports a global community of Practitioners, Fellows, and Approved Suppliers committed to the very highest standards of practice.