Reconsidering the patient-centeredness of osteopathy

Historical Osteopathic Principles and Practices in Contemporary Care: An Anthropological Perspective to Foster Evidence-Informed and Culturally Sensitive Patient-Centered Care: A Commentary

Historical osteopathic principles and practices (OPP)-considering the patient as a dynamic interaction of the body, mind, and spirit and incorporating the body's self-healing ability into care-are inherited from traditional/complementary and alternative (CAM) principles. Both concepts are familiar to contemporary osteopathic practitioners, but their incorporation into healthcare for evidence-informed, patient-centered care (PCC) remains unclear. Further, a polarity exists in the osteopathic profession between a 'traditional-minded' group following historical OPP despite evidence against those models and an 'evidence-minded' group following the current available evidence for common patient complaints. By shifting professional practices towards evidence-based practices for manual therapy in line with the Western dominant biomedical paradigm, the latter group is challenging the osteopathic professional identity. To alleviate this polarity, we would like to refocus on patient values and expectations, highlighting cultural diversity from an anthropological perspective. Increasing an awareness of diverse sociocultural health assumptions may foster culturally sensitive PCC, especially when including non-Western sociocultural belief systems of health into that person-centered care. Therefore, the current medical anthropological perspective on the legacy of traditional/CAM principles in historical OPP is offered to advance the osteopathic profession by promoting ethical, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed PCC in a Western secular environment. Such inclusive approaches are likely to meet patients' values and expectations, whether informed by Western or non-Western sociocultural beliefs, and improve their satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Who is at the centre of what? A scoping review of the conceptualisation of 'centredness' in healthcare

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify the core elements of centredness in healthcare literature. Our overall research question is: How has centredness been represented within the health literature published between 1990 and 2019?

METHODS

A scoping review across five databases (Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus; August 2019) to identify all peer-reviewed literature published since 1990 that focused on the concept of centredness in any healthcare discipline or setting. Screening occurred in duplicate by a multidisciplinary, multinational team. The team met regularly to iteratively develop and refine a coding template that was used in analysis and discuss the interpretations of centredness reported in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 23 006 title and abstracts, and 499 full-text articles were screened. A total of 159 articles were included in the review. Most articles were from the USA, and nursing was the disciplinary perspective most represented. We identified nine elements of centredness: Sharing power; Sharing responsibility; Therapeutic relationship/bond/alliance; Patient as a person; Biopsychosocial; Provider as a person; Co-ordinated care; Access; Continuity of care. There was little variation in the concept of centredness no matter the preceding word (eg, patient-/person-/client-), healthcare setting or disciplinary lens. Improving health outcomes was the most common justification for pursuing centredness as a concept, and respect was the predominant driving value of the research efforts. The patient perspective was rarely included in the papers (15% of papers).

CONCLUSIONS

Centredness is consistently conceptualised, regardless of the preceding word, disciplinary lens or nation of origin. Further research should focus on centring the patient perspective and prioritise research that considers more diverse cultural perspectives.

Osteopathic Care as (En)active Inference: A Theoretical Framework for Developing an Integrative Hypothesis in Osteopathy

Osteopathy is a person-centred healthcare discipline that emphasizes the body’s structure-function interrelationship—and its self-regulatory mechanisms—to inform a whole-person approach to health and wellbeing. This paper aims to provide a theoretical framework for developing an integrative hypothesis in osteopathy, which is based on the enactivist and active inference accounts. We propose that osteopathic care can be reconceptualised under (En)active inference as a unifying framework. Active inference suggests that action-perception cycles operate to minimize uncertainty and optimize an individual’s internal model of the lived world and, crucially, the consequences of their behaviour. We argue that (En)active inference offers an integrative framework for osteopathy, which can evince the mechanisms underlying dyadic and triadic (e.g., in paediatric care) exchanges and osteopathic care outcomes. We propose that this theoretical framework can underpin osteopathic care across the lifespan, from preterm infants to the elderly and those with persistent pain and other physical symptoms. In situations of chronicity, as an ecological niche, the patient-practitioner dyad provides the osteopath and the patient with a set of affordances, i.e., possibilities for action provided by the environment, that through shared intentionally, can promote adaptations and restoration of productive agency. Through a dyadic therapeutic relationship, as they engage with their ecological niche’s affordances—a structured set of affordances shared by agents—osteopath and patient actively construct a shared sense-making narrative and realise a shared generative model of their relation to the niche. In general, touch plays a critical role in developing a robust therapeutic alliance, mental state alignment, and biobehavioural synchrony between patient and practitioner. However, its role is particularly crucial in the fields of neonatology and paediatrics, where it becomes central in regulating allostasis and restoring homeostasis. We argue that from an active inference standpoint, the dyadic shared ecological niche underwrites a robust therapeutic alliance, which is crucial to the effectiveness of osteopathic care. Considerations and implications of this model—to clinical practice and research, both within- and outside osteopathy—are critically discussed.

International Overview of Somatic Dysfunction Assessment and Treatment in Osteopathic Research: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a patient-centred, whole-body intervention aimed at enhance the person's self-regulation. OMT interventions are focused on somatic dysfunctions (SD) that can be defined as an altered regulative function associated with inflammatory signs palpable in the body framework in different body regions. The conceptual model that sustains SD, as well as its usefulness for the osteopathic profession, is still being discussed by the osteopathic community. Understanding the role and the application of SD is the aim of this scoping review.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out through the main biomedical databases: Pubmed (Medline), Cochrane, Central (Cochrane), Embase, PEDro and Scopus. Grey literature was considered via Google Scholar and the Osteopathic Research Web. The review was prepared by referring to the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews" (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

A total of 37,279 records were identified through database searching and other sources. After the duplicates were removed, 27,023 titles and abstracts were screened. A total of 1495 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. The qualitative synthesis included 280 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating SD is an important part of osteopathic practice that varies from country to country. SD should be considered as a clinical value that assists in the clinical assessment and guides the decision-making process of osteopathic practitioners. Further studies should be designed to better understand why and how to choose the different assessment and intervention modalities to approach SD and to evaluate new osteopathic models.

Osteopathic structure/function models renovation for a person-centered approach: a narrative review and integrative hypothesis

OBJECTIVES

The construct of the osteopathic structure-function models is reported as a cornerstone of clinical reasoning and treatment processes. Nevertheless, there are no shared procedures described for their use in clinical practice. The present narrative review aims to analyze a more comprehensive perspective on the phenomenon.

METHODS

A structured narrative review was conducted. A database search was conducted using Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Peer-reviewed papers without specifying limits on dates and design were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-five findings were reported and grouped into two main themes: 1) Debate on models and theoretical frameworks for osteopathic care; 2) Clinical reasoning and decision-making process in the osteopathic field.

CONCLUSIONS

An integrated osteopathic care approach based on the structure/function models represents a starting point to establish a shared osteopathic diagnostic and clinical reasoning and an evidence-informed practice promoting health in an interdisciplinary person-centered care process. The present review highlights the limited amount of literature on using osteopathic conceptual models in decision-making and treatment strategies. A research plan is required to develop a common framework for an evidence-based osteopathic practice that promotes well-being in an interdisciplinary person-centered care process.

Osteopathy and Mental Health: An Embodied, Predictive, and Interoceptive Framework

Globally, mental and musculoskeletal disorders present with high prevalence, disease burden, and comorbidity. In order to improve the quality of care for patients with persistent physical and comorbid mental health conditions, person-centered care approaches addressing psychosocial factors are currently advocated. Central to successful person-centered care is a multidisciplinary collaboration between mental health and musculoskeletal specialists underpinned by a robust therapeutic alliance. Such a collaborative approach might be found in osteopathy, which is typically utilized to treat patients with musculoskeletal disorders but may arguably also benefit mental health outcomes. However, research and practice exploring the reputed effect of osteopathy on patients with mental health problems lack a robust framework. In this hypothesis and theory article, we build upon research from embodied cognition, predictive coding, interoception, and osteopathy to propose an embodied, predictive and interoceptive framework that underpins osteopathic person-centered care for individuals with persistent physical and comorbid mental health problems. Based on the premise that, for example, chronic pain and comorbid depression are underlined by overly precise predictions or imprecise sensory information, we hypothesize that osteopathic treatment may generate strong interoceptive prediction errors that update the generative model underpinning the experience of pain and depression. Thus, physical and mental symptoms may be reduced through active and perceptual inference. We discuss how these theoretical perspectives can inform future research into osteopathy and mental health to reduce the burden of comorbid psychological factors in patients with persistent physical symptoms and support person-centered multidisciplinary care in mental health.

Barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain - a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines commonly recommend adopting a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework by practitioners managing musculoskeletal pain. However, it remains unclear how osteopaths implement a BPS framework in the management of musculoskeletal pain. Hence, the objective of this review was to systematically appraise the literature on the current practices, barriers and facilitators experienced by osteopaths in implementing a BPS framework of care when managing people with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

The following electronic databases from January 2005 to August 2020 were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct, Google Scholar, ProQuest Central and SCOPUS. Two independent reviewers reviewed the articles retrieved from the databases to assess for eligibility. Any studies (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods) that investigated the use or application of the BPS approach in osteopathic practice were included in the review. The critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklist was used to appraise the qualitative studies and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to appraise quantitative or mixed methods studies. Advanced convergent meta-integration was used to synthesise data from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies (two quantitative, three qualitative and one mixed methods) were included in the final review. While two key concepts (current practice and embracing a BPS approach) were generated using advanced meta-integration synthesis, two concepts (barriers and enablers) were informed from qualitative only data.

DISCUSSION

Our review finding showed that current osteopathic practice occurs within in the biomedical model of care. Although, osteopaths are aware of the theoretical underpinnings of the BPS model and identified the need to embrace it, various barriers exist that may prevent osteopaths from implementing the BPS model in clinical practice. Ongoing education and/or workshops may be necessary to enable osteopaths to implement a BPS approach.

The role of osteopathy in the Swiss primary health care system: a practice review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to describe osteopathic activity and scope of practice to understand the current and future role of osteopathy in the Swiss healthcare system.

DESIGN

A questionnaire survey that included a patient record-based retrospective clinical audit.

SETTING/POPULATION

Osteopaths with a national diploma (n=1086) were invited by mail to participate in an online survey. Osteopathic assistants (n=84) were identified through their national association.

QUESTIONNAIRE

The survey was constructed from previous surveys and tested for face validity with experts, osteopaths and patient representatives. The questionnaires were completed online in English, German and French between April and August 2017. Osteopaths anonymously reported information about themselves, their practice, and the treatment and care for four randomly selected patients they managed in 2016.

RESULTS

The response rate from the survey was 44.5% (521/1171). Data on osteopathic care were collected for 1144 patients and 3449 consultations. In 2016, osteopaths saw approximately 6.8% of the Swiss population for 1700 000 consultations and an overall estimated cost of 200 million Swiss francs. 76% of patients sought care directly without a referral from another care provider. Few osteopaths (<1%) work in a hospital setting and 46% work in isolation in private practice. Infants (under 2 years old) made up 10% of all patients and 9% of patients were ≥65 years. Patients most commonly sought treatment for musculoskeletal conditions (81%) with the spine being the most frequent location (66%). Treatments also included exercise advice (34.2%) and lifestyle management (35.4%). Fewer than 1 patient out of 10 were referred to another health profession or provider.

CONCLUSIONS

In Switzerland, osteopathic care represents an important first line management for musculoskeletal conditions that alleviates some of the burden of care in the Swiss primary healthcare system.

Quiet dissent: The attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of UK osteopaths who reject low back pain guidance - A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guidelines are derived from best research evidence and aim to: improve quality of non-specific low back pain (nsLBP) management and identify patients at risk of suffering chronic pain. However, guideline discordant attitudes and beliefs have been identified in healthcare students and practitioners, including osteopaths.

DESIGN

A qualitative approach with elements of grounded theory was used to explore underlying attitudes and beliefs of practitioners/students working in a British osteopathic education institution. All participants rejected guideline recommendations for managing nsLBP. A constant comparative method was used to code and analyse emergent themes from transcript data.

SUBJECTS

Purposive sampling identified 5 clinic tutors and 7 students; all participated in semi-structured interviews.

INTERPRETATION

Our central theme was a 'Precedence of Osteopathy' over medicine and other manual therapies. Three subthemes were: 1) beliefs about self; 2) perceptions of others; 3) attitudes to guidelines and research.

CONCLUSION

Participants possess a strong professional identity fostered by their education. This bestows autonomy, authority and distinctness upon them. The central theme was modelled as a lens through which participants viewed research: the evidence pyramid appears inverted, explaining why participants value expert opinion above all other evidence. Guidelines and research are perceived to threaten professional identity. In contractual situations that oblige practitioners to follow guidelines management, perhaps reflecting a pragmatic response to health-care market forces, clinical practice is modified. Developing further understanding of osteopaths' attitudes and beliefs and behaviour in respect of evidence-based guidance in education is important to enhance the quality of clinical practice in osteopathy.

Person-centered osteopathic practice: patients' personality (body, mind, and soul) and health (ill-being and well-being)

Background. Osteopathic philosophy and practice are congruent with the biopsychosocial model, a patient-centered approach when treating disease, and the view of the person as a unity (i.e., body, mind, and soul). Nevertheless, a unity of being should involve a systematic person-centered understanding of the patient's personality as a biopsychosociospiritual construct that influences health (i.e., well-being and ill-being). We suggest Cloninger's personality model, comprising temperament (i.e., body) and character (i.e., mind and soul), as a genuine paradigm for implementation in osteopathic practice. As a first step, we investigated (1) the relationships between personality and health among osteopathic patients, (2) differences in personality between patients and a control group, and (3) differences in health within patients depending on the presenting problem and gender. Method. 524 osteopathic patients in Sweden (age mean = 46.17, SD = 12.54, 388 females and 136 males) responded to an online survey comprising the Temperament and Character Inventory and measures of health (well-being: life satisfaction, positive affect, harmony in life, energy, and resilience; ill-being: negative affect, anxiety, depression, stress, and dysfunction and suffering associated to the presenting problem). We conducted two structural equation models to investigate the association personality-health; graphically compared the patients' personality T-scores to those of the control group and compared the mean raw scores using t-tests; and conducted two multivariate analyses of variance, using age as covariate, to compare patients' health in relation to their presenting problem and gender. Results. The patients' personality explained the variance of all of the well-being (R (2) between .19 and .54) and four of the ill-being (R (2) between .05 and .43) measures. Importantly, self-transcendence, the spiritual aspect of personality, was associated to high levels of positive emotions and resilience. Osteopathic patients, compared to controls, scored higher in six of the seven personality dimensions. These differences were, however, not considerably large (divergences in T-scores were <1 SD, Cohen's d between 0.12 and 0.40). Presenting problem and gender did not have an effect on any of the health measures. Conclusion. The patient's personality as a ternary construct (i.e., body, mind, and soul), which is in line with osteopathy, is associated to both well-being and ill-being. The lack of substantial differences in personality between patients and controls implies that the patients had not any personality disorders. Hence, osteopaths might, with proper education, be able to coach their patients to self-awareness. The lack of differences in health variables between osteopathic patients with different presenting problems suggests that practitioners should focus on the person's health regardless of the type of presenting problem.