The World Health Organization’s Global Traditional Medicine Centre has begun publishing a sequence of working papers that document training and practice across traditional medicine systems and therapeutic modalities. The series is presented as descriptive reference material. It aims to map existing reported approaches to education, accreditation and practice without issuing prescriptive standards. The WHO framed the effort as part of the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034.
The first instalment in this series, released in October 2026, focuses on cupping therapy. The paper is titled Cupping therapy: descriptive synthesis of training. It compiles how training for cupping therapy is reported and organized in different settings, with particular attention paid to approaches aligned with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). The WHO described the working paper as a non-normative overview intended to inform discussion among regulators, education bodies and practitioners.
The inaugural working paper presents an evidence-informed picture of reported training pathways for cupping. The source indicates the primary method was a systematic scoping review. From that review, the paper reportedly described curriculum content, competency domains, learning outcomes, modes of delivery and assessment, trainer qualifications, training facilities and accreditation arrangements.
Descriptions in the paper emphasize diversity. The analysis focuses mainly on cupping as situated within TCM, while also acknowledging that cupping practices vary across other traditional medical systems. The WHO characterized the document as descriptive rather than prescriptive; it is intended to serve as a shared, neutral foundation for informed discussion rather than as a directive set of standards.
Investigators reported drawing on three sources of input: existing scientific evidence, accreditation frameworks and expert inputs. The WHO summary states the work is grounded in a systematic scoping review, but the source did not list the specific review protocol, inclusion criteria, or the names of the consulted experts and accreditation bodies. The paper describes reported educational elements—such as competency domains and trainer qualifications—yet it does not claim to harmonize or standardize those elements across jurisdictions.
The working paper is explicit in its remit. It compiles and synthesizes descriptions of training and practice as they are reported in the literature and other sources. It does not, according to the WHO announcement, set normative training requirements, mandatory competency thresholds, or regulatory prescriptions. Readers should treat the document as a mapped inventory and descriptive analysis rather than a formal guideline.
The WHO positioned the series as a tool for multiple stakeholders. Policy-makers and regulators can use the descriptive syntheses to compare reported training models and accreditation arrangements. Education and accreditation bodies may find the collated curriculum elements and competency domains useful as a starting point for local deliberation. Clinicians, researchers and practitioners are invited to use the papers to support dialogue on integration of traditional approaches into broader health systems.
The series intends to facilitate discussion on education, professional practice, regulation, health-system integration and research by providing a neutral baseline of documented practices. The WHO described these working papers as contributing to the evidence base and to informed debate within and between jurisdictions.
The WHO announced several forthcoming working papers slated for 2026–27. These will address training in chiropractic, Siddha, Taijiquan and TCM. In addition, the series will include practice-focused papers on Nuad Thai, Siddha and TCM. The organization framed the expanding collection as a growing repository of descriptive, evidence-informed references on traditional medicine.
The WHO release clarifies that these are working papers with a descriptive remit. The source did not provide granular methodological details such as the scoping review protocol, specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, or lists of individual experts and accreditation bodies consulted. The papers do not establish universal training standards or regulatory requirements; they stop short of normative guidance. Questions remain about how jurisdictions will interpret and apply the synthesized information, whether further empirical research will validate the reported training elements, and how the WHO will update or expand the series over time.
Readers seeking implementation-ready standards or accreditation templates will not find them in this set of publications. The WHO framed the documents as foundational references to promote informed discussion; subsequent technical guidance or regulation, if any, was not described in the source.