On the website of the American Podiatric Medical Association, is this advice regarding children’s footwear with this graphic provided by the children’s shoe manufacturer, StrideRite.
It is not too dissimilar to the advice that I have seen being widely given for the use of children’s shoes. Where a problem arises is that I periodically come across comments in social media calling out the APMA on what they are advising, asking how robust the advice is and what is the evidence supporting the advice that they are given. I have yet to ever see the APMA respond. Here the most recent couple that I have seen:
— JF Esculier (@JFEsculier) January 14, 2017
— Kevin Maggs (@RunningReform) January 14, 2017
The onus on any professional body giving advice or guideline is to ensure that that advice and guidelines are consistent with the latest preponderance of evidence and not underpinned by any commercial bias. What evidence is underpinning the above recommendations? There is none. There is no evidence that a children’s shoe should have a stiff heel. There is no evidence that a children’s shoe should only bend at the toes. There is no evidence that the midsole should be rigid. It is on that basis that the APMA is being called out in social media for this advice.
The cynic could simply respond superficially by saying, do those who are criticizing the APMA have any evidence that the claims are wrong? They don’t. However, the ‘burden of proof’ fallacy is that the burden is on those making claims to support and defend them. So you can’t just twist it around to get the critics to provide evidence of the opposite by deflecting the burden of proof to the negative.
What sort of issues does this raise?
- What are the responsibility of professional representative organizations to issue advice and guidelines that are evidence-based? (surely the answer to that is obvious!)
- If you follow some comments in social media, the commercial bias and imperative is often raised. In this case, the graphic on that APMA page that is posted above is provided by a commercial manufacturer. I do not have a problem with commercial sponsorship and support for professional organizations as the money is typically used to fund the goals of the organization, but they should not dictate or influence any policies or guidelines of the organization. In this case, StrideRite has a ‘seal of approval‘ from the APMA which they would have had to pay for. This certainly opens the APMA to criticism in giving non-evidence-based advice on a product that is giving them money. As money is involved, this increases the scrutiny as to the quality and robustness of the advice being given
- Why is the APMA not responding to the call outs in social media to defend what they are advising?
So what advice should be given for children’s shoes?
I would have thought that the most appropriate logical and intuitive advice on shoes for kids, in the absence of any evidence to intervene, would be to use shoes that have design features that do not interfere with the developing foot. That contradicts with some of the advice being given by the APMA.
This is, of course, assuming that there are no problems present that need intervention. We can have a debate on the evidence for that another day.
@CraigBPayne I contacted the APMA 2 years ago multiple times about this and they promised to get back to me but never did. Shameful
— Paul Langer (@paullanger1) January 16, 2017