An investigation of Australian osteopaths' attitudes, skills and utilisation of evidence-based practice: a national cross-sectional survey

Fluid professional boundaries: ethnographic observations of co-located chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs) can assess and manage musculoskeletal conditions with similar manual or physical therapy techniques. This overlap in scope of practice raises questions about the boundaries between the three professions. Clinical settings where they are co-located are one of several possible influences on professional boundaries and may provide insight into the nature of these boundaries and how they are managed by clinicians themselves.

OBJECTIVES

To understand the nature of professional boundaries between COPs within a co-located clinical environment and describe the ways in which professional boundaries may be reinforced, weakened, or navigated in this environment.

METHODS

Drawing from an interpretivist paradigm, we used ethnographic observations to observe interactions between 15 COPs across two clinics. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis principles.

RESULTS

We identified various physical and non-physical 'boundary objects' that influenced the nature of the professional boundaries between the COPs that participated in the study. These boundary objects overall seemed to increase the fluidity of the professional boundaries, at times simultaneously reinforcing and weakening them. The boundary objects were categorised into three themes: physical, including the clinic's floor plan, large and small objects; social, including identities and discourse; and organisational, including appointment durations and fees, remuneration policies and insurance benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical, social, organisational related factors made the nature of professional boundaries between COPs in these settings fluid; meaning that they were largely not rigid or fixed but rather flexible, responsive and subject to change. These findings may challenge patients, clinicians and administrators to appreciate that traditional beliefs of distinct boundaries between COPs may not be so in co-located clinical environments. Both clinical practice and future research on professional boundaries between COPs may need to further consider some of these broader factors.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for chronic inflammatory diseases

Chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) are debilitating and potentially lethal illnesses that affect a large proportion of the global population. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a manual therapy technique developed and performed by osteopathic physicians that facilitates the body's innate healing processes. Therefore, OMT may prove a beneficial anti-inflammatory modality useful in the management and treatment of CIDs. This work aims to objectively evaluate the therapeutic benefits of OMT in patients with various CIDs. In this review, a structured literature search was performed. The included studies involving asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, irritable bowel syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and peripheral arterial disease were selected for this work. Various OMT modalities, including lymphatic, still, counterstain, and muscle energy techniques, were utilized. Control treatments included sham techniques, routine care, or no treatment. OMT utilization led to variable patient outcomes in individuals with pathologies linked to CID.

Characteristics, Opportunities, and Challenges of Osteopathy Based on the Perceptions of Osteopaths in Austria: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

There are no uniform regulations for the osteopathic profession in Europe. It is subject to country-specific regulations defining who shall be allowed to practice osteopathy and which qualification shall be required. In recent years, legal regulations have been established in several European countries for the profession of osteopathy; however, these are also still pending for Austria. Currently, physiotherapists and physicians with osteopathic training are practicing osteopathy in Austria.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the characteristics, challenges, and opportunities of osteopaths in Austria.

METHODS

Guideline-based interviews with osteopaths (N=10) were conducted. The different research questions were examined using a qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The study provided a differentiated insight into the professional situation of osteopaths in Austria. The most important result was that all interviewees unanimously supported a legal regulation of their profession. However, owing to their different professional self-image-on the one hand, individuals working on a structural basis, and, on the other hand, individuals working on a cranial or biodynamic basis-they were able to imagine a uniform professional regulation only to a limited extent. Additional topics for the interviewed osteopaths in Austria were the quality assurance of training and the urgent need for scientific research. Furthermore, the study also dealt with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily practice and on education and training in osteopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is a pioneering study with regard to systematic basic research on osteopathy in Austria. The obtained results and the newly acquired research questions not only have the potential to serve as a basis for further studies but also provide insight into the working and professional situation of osteopaths in Austria for universities, schools, professional associations, politics, and-last but not least-all interested parties.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/15399.

Evidence implementation in Australian manual therapy practice: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have explored the determinants of evidence implementation in complementary manual therapy professions. Exploring the factors that impede or enable evidence implementation in complementary manual therapy professions is critical to determining the most appropriate strategies to optimise this practice, and enhance the quality of care.

METHODS

The study used a cross-sectional study design to examine Australian complementary medicine manual therapists' attitudes, skills, training, use, barriers and enablers to evidence implementation. Eligible therapists were invited to self-administer the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey online.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 294 manual therapists (77% female; 65% aged ≥50 years). Participants were mostly supportive of, and reported a moderate to moderate-high level of skill in evidence implementation. However, the level of engagement in evidence implementation was low. The leading barriers to evidence implementation were lack of time, and lack of clinical evidence. While few participants reported skill-level as a barrier, most indicated a desire to develop the skills necessary to improve their engagement in evidence implementation. Participants also supported a range of other enabling strategies to foster evidence implementation in their practice, with most of these strategies targeting access to evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants reported few barriers to evidence implementation, there was a low level of engagement in this activity. The barriers to evidence implementation therefore warrant further exploration. This ongoing work will help better understand how to optimise evidence implementation in complementary manual therapy practice, and help drive improvements in patient care.

Patient-shared knowledge and information in clinical decision-making: an international survey of the perspectives and experiences of naturopathic practitioners

INTRODUCTION

Most knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.

METHODS

This international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Researchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.

Evidence implementation in naturopathy: A cross-sectional study of Australian naturopaths

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evidence implementation refers to the application of appropriate enabling strategies to improve clinician engagement with the best available evidence. To date, little attention has been paid to evidence implementation in disciplines such as naturopathy. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in Australian naturopathic practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was open to all Australian naturopaths who had internet access and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between March and July 2020.

RESULTS

The survey was completed in full by 174 naturopaths (87.4% female; 31.6% aged 40-59 years). While participant attitudes were predominantly favourable of evidence implementation, engagement in evidence implementation activities was reported at a low to moderate level. Factors impacting participant engagement in such activities included a lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, lack of time, and a moderate to moderately-high level of self-reported skill in evidence implementation. Enablers of evidence implementation were access to the internet, free online databases, full-text journal articles, and online education materials.

CONCLUSION

This study has provided valuable insights into the level of, and factors impacting evidence implementation among Australian naturopaths. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural and cognitive. This suggests that the obstacles to evidence implementation in naturopathy are most likely surmountable with the right means and concerted effort.

Investigating attitudes, skills, and use of evidence-based practice among Norwegian chiropractors; a national cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is essential in improving the quality of healthcare and of importance for all health care personnel. No study in Norway has investigated attitudes, skills and use related to EBP among chiropractors. The aim of this study was to describe Norwegian chiropractors' attitudes, skills, and use of EBP, as well as the barriers and facilitators to their use of EBP.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey, the online version of the Evidence Based practice Attitudes & Utilisation SurvEy (EBASE), was sent by email to 770 Norwegian practicing chiropractors, all members of the Norwegian Chiropractic Association. Three EBASE sub-scores were generated (Attitudes, Skills and Use), and the demographic characteristics of the sample were reported. Linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the association between responses of the three sub-scores and demographic characteristics. Information on main barriers and facilitators of EBP was collected and described.

RESULTS

A total of 312 (41%) chiropractors responded to the survey, and 95% agreed that EBP is necessary for chiropractic practice. While overall use of EBP activities was low participants were interested in learning and improving their skills to incorporate EBP into practice. Chiropractors' attitudes, skills, and use of EBP were positively associated with being female and having spent more than one hour per week on research, but negatively associated with having practiced more than 10 years. Main barriers of EBP were lack of skills to critically evaluate, interpret, and apply research findings to practice. Main facilitators of EBP included access to the internet and free online databases in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

Although chiropractors in Norway reported positive attitudes and moderate skills in EBP, their use of EBP activities was limited. The main barriers and facilitators to EBP were primarily related to perceived skills deficits, whilst enablers of EBP were mostly related to infrastructure requirements.

Attitudes, skills and implementation of evidence-based practice: a national cross-sectional survey of licensed naprapaths in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality, safe and effective health care. Naprapaths, manual therapy providers that specialize in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction, became a Swedish licensed health profession in 1994. This study investigated the attitudes, skills and implementation of EBP among licensed naprapaths in Sweden.

METHODS

Licensed naprapaths (n = 950) of Svenska Naprapatförbundet (the Swedish Naprapathy Association) were invited by email to take part in this cross-sectional anonymous online study using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilisation Survey in February 2019.

RESULTS

Fourteen percent (137/950) of invited naprapaths completed the survey. There was an approximately equal gender divide among responders; most were in the mid-career age range, practiced in city areas, and had a university or college certificate/diploma as their highest qualification. The majority of naprapaths agreed or strongly agreed that EBP was necessary in the practice of naprapathy, assisted them in making care decisions, and improved the quality of patient care. Naprapaths' self-reported skills in EBP were mostly in the moderate to moderate-high range. The majority of participating naprapaths reported infrequent implementation of EBP. Perceived minor or moderate barriers to EBP uptake included a lack of colleague support for EBP and a lack of relevant resources. Access to the internet and free online databases were reported as very useful enablers to improving EBP uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

The licensed naprapaths participating in this survey reported positive attitudes toward EBP, moderate levels of EBP skills, and infrequent implementation of EBP.

Canadian Naturopathic Doctor Engagement, Preparedness, and Perceptions of Evidence-Based Practice: A National Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Despite the reported benefits of evidence-based practice (EBP), there are concerns that some practitioners, including naturopathic doctors (NDs), may be cautious about its use. The objective of this study was to explore Canadian ND perceptions, preparedness, and engagement in EBP, and the barriers and enablers to EBP uptake. Methods: The study was a national cross-sectional survey. NDs practicing in Canada were invited to complete the validated 84-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes and Utilization Survey between February and May 2020. Results: A total of 252 Canadian NDs were recruited. Participant attitudes toward EBP were predominantly positive, with three-quarters of participants indicating that >50% of their practice was informed by clinical research evidence. One-half of participants self-reported a medium-high to high level of skill across most EBP-related activities. Notable barriers to EBP uptake were lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy, and lack of time. Access to the internet and online databases were identified as useful enablers to improving EBP engagement. Conclusions: By shedding light on Canadian ND engagement with, preparedness for, and perceptions of EBP, the findings will help guide the development of strategies to support EBP uptake in NDs with the expectation of improving quality of care.

Evidence implementation among complementary medicine practitioners: a meta-summary

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors impacting evidence implementation in complementary medicine (CM) practice.

CONTENT

MEDLINE and CINAHL were systematically searched for cross-sectional studies examining evidence implementation among CM practitioners. Qualitative data from eligible studies were collated and analysed using a meta-summary approach. Data were coded according to the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and translated into barriers and enablers.

SUMMARY

Qualitative data were available for 614 participants (from 16 disciplines) across 14 studies. Coding identified 34 themes, with most themes aligning with the Inner Setting (11 themes) and Characteristics of the Intervention (10 themes) domains of the CFIR. The most commonly referenced barriers to evidence implementation were: 'Lack of supportive resources' (Effect size [ES]=33.3%), 'Research misalignment with profession and practice' (ES=14.5%) and 'Lack of access to knowledge and information' (ES=10.5%). The most common enablers were: 'Recognition of a need for change' (ES=8.2%) and 'Perceived adaptability of EBP to the profession' (ES=7.8%).

OUTLOOK

This research offers new insights into the challenges and opportunities to implementing evidence-based practices in the field of CM. The findings underline the complexity of the phenomenon, and the need for a nuanced, multi-faceted and multi-stakeholder approach to improving evidence implementation in CM.

Beliefs and Use of Palpatory Findings in Osteopathic Clinical Practice: A Qualitative Descriptive Study among Italian Osteopaths

The Italian government has started the regulatory process of osteopathy to include it among the healthcare professions mentioning terms, such as “perceptual palpation” and “somatic dysfunction” within the professional profile. ‘Palpatory findings’ are one of the multidimensional aspects that can inform osteopathic clinical reasoning. The non-regulated educational system has led to heterogenic professionals working in Italy, thus, the aim of this study was to investigate how Italian experts use palpatory findings in their clinical practice. A total of 12 experts were selected to participate in four virtual focus groups. A qualitative inductive approach with a constructivist paradigm was chosen to describe the results. The themes that emerged were: osteopathic identity; evaluation; osteopathic diagnosis; and sharing with different recipients. Participants agreed on the peculiarity and distinctiveness of osteopathic palpation, but there was some disagreement on the clinical significance of the findings, highlighting a complex multidimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. The results seem to reflect the history of the profession in Italy, which has evolved quickly, leading professionals to seek new paradigms blending tradition and scientific evidence. The authors suggest further investigation to verify the state of art among osteopaths not involved in research or a broader consensus of the results.

Implementation science in New Zealand naturopathic practice: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Understanding and addressing the barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) falls within the realm of implementation science. To date, disciplines such as naturopathy have paid little attention to implementation science, meaning the obstacles to delivering best practice care have largely been ignored. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining the determinants of evidence implementation in New Zealand naturopathic practice.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was open to all New Zealand naturopaths who had Internet access, and were fluent in the English language. Participants were invited to complete the 84-item Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) online between February and July 2020.

RESULTS

The survey was completed in full by 104 naturopaths (86% female; 55% aged 40-59 years). While attitudes toward EBP were generally favourable, engagement in EBP activities was reported at a moderate-low level. Factors potentially contributing to the modest uptake of EBP were the moderate level of self-reported EBP-related skill, lack of clinical evidence in naturopathy and lack of time. Enablers of EBP uptake that were supported by the majority of participants were access to the Internet, online databases, EBP education materials, and full-text journal articles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has provided much-needed insight into the level of EBP engagement among New Zealand naturopaths, as well as the various factors impacting evidence implementation. Attitude did not pose a major barrier to evidence implementation; rather, the barriers were largely structural, cognitive and cultural. This suggests that the barriers to EBP uptake in naturopathy are not unsurmountable.

Evidence-based practice among Italian osteopaths: a national cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

While evidence-based practice (EBP) is widely accepted across healthcare professions, research investigating its implementation in manual therapy professions such as osteopathy is limited. The primary aim of this study was to investigate Italian osteopaths' attitudes, skills, and use of EBP. A secondary purpose was to understand the obstacles and enablers to EBP adoption in the Italian osteopathic context.

METHODS

A cross-sectional national survey was conducted (April to June 2020) among a sample of Italian osteopaths. Eligible participants were invited to complete the Italian-translated Evidence-Based practice Attitude and Utilization Survey (EBASE) anonymously online using various recruitment strategies, including email and social media campaigns. In addition to the three EBASE sub-scores (attitudes, skills and use), the demographic characteristics of the sample were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 473 osteopaths responded to the survey. The sample appeared to represent the Italian osteopathic profession. The majority of participants had a favorable attitude toward EBP. Eighty-eight percent of respondents agreed that EBP was necessary for osteopathy practice and that scientific literature and research findings were beneficial to their clinical scenario (95%). Perceived skill levels in EBP were rated as moderate, with the lowest scores for items relating to clinical research and systematic review conduct. Apart from reading/reviewing scientific literature and using online search engines to locate relevant research papers, participant engagement in all other EBP-related activities was generally low. Clinical practice was perceived to be based on a very small proportion of clinical research evidence. The primary obstacles to EBP implementation were a dearth of clinical evidence in osteopathy, and poor skills in applying research findings. The primary enablers of EBP adoption were access to full-text articles, internet connectivity at work, and access to online databases.

CONCLUSIONS

Italian osteopaths were largely supportive of evidence-based practice but lacked basic skills in EBP and rarely engaged in EBP activities. The updating of osteopathic training curriculum and professional formal regulation in Italy could provide a suitable framework to improve EBP skills and use.

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.

Osteopathic empirical research: a bibliometric analysis from 1966 to 2018

Background

Despite the increasing use of osteopathy, a manipulative complementary and alternative medicine therapy, in the general population, its efficacy continues to be debated. In this era of evidence-based practice, no studies have previously reviewed the scientific literature in the field to identify published knowledge, trends and gaps in empirical research. The aims of this bibliometric analysis are to describe characteristics of articles published on the efficacy of osteopathic interventions and to provide an overall portrait of their impacts in the scientific literature.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis approach was used. Articles were identified with searches using a combination of relevant MeSH terms and indexing keywords about osteopathy and research designs in MEDLINE and CINAHL databases. The following indicators were extracted: country of primary author, year of publication, journals, impact factor of the journal, number of citations, research design, participants’ age group, system/body part addressed, primary outcome, indexing keywords and types of techniques.

Results

A total of 389 articles met the inclusion criteria. The number of empirical studies doubled every 5 years, with the United States, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom being the most productive countries. Twenty-three articles were cited over 100 times. Articles were published in 103 different indexed journals, but more than half (53.7%) of articles were published in one of three osteopathy-focused readership journals. Randomized control trials (n = 145; 37.3%) and case reports (n = 142; 36.5%) were the most common research designs. A total of 187 (48.1%) studies examined the effects of osteopathic interventions using a combination of techniques that belonged to two or all of the classic fields of osteopathic interventions (musculoskeletal, cranial, and visceral).

Conclusion

The number of osteopathy empirical studies increased significantly from 1980 to 2014. The productivity appears to be very much in sync with practice development and innovations; however, the articles were mainly published in osteopathic journals targeting a limited, disciplinary-focused readership.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-021-03366-3.

Barriers to the conduct and application of research among complementary and alternative medicine professions in Australia and New Zealand: A cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Despite the growing international popularity and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the uptake of evidence-based practice (EBP) in CAM has been slow. This cross-sectional survey aimed to further our understanding of the factors impacting EBP uptake in CAM.

METHODS

The 32-item oBSTACLES instrument was administered online using the SurveyMonkey™platform. The survey evaluated barriers to both the conduct and application of research among CAM practitioners and researchers, from multiple CAM disciplines across Australia and New Zealand. Participants were recruited via practice-based research networks, professional associations, CAM educational institutions, CAM research centres, pertinent product manufacturers and social media platforms. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eighty-two CAM stakeholders responded to the survey. Barrier items were divided into two interlinked constructs, "capacity" and "culture". Capacity related to issues regarding access, competency, bias, incentives, and time, whereas culture related to values and complex systems. Under capacity, the greatest proportion of participants (>70 %) agreed that access was a barrier to the conduct and application of research, including lack of funding, institutional support, research training and collaborations. In terms of culture, the majority of participants (>60 %) agreed that values were a barrier to research conduct and application, including limited undergraduate research opportunities and diverse views of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this research suggest a multitude of barriers negatively impact the conduct and application of research in CAM. Insights gained from this research will be instrumental in developing actionable strategies aimed at mitigating the impact of these barriers to improve research engagement in CAM.

The clinical management of neck pain of novice and experienced Australian osteopaths: A secondary analysis of a nationally representative sample

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide. Osteopaths are primary contact health professionals who predominantly manage musculoskeletal complaints. How Australian osteopaths manage neck pain is beginning to emerge in the literature and there may be differences based on clinical experience. This work presents a secondary data analysis of the Australian osteopathy practice-based research network and aims to examine the clinical management characteristics of experienced and novice osteopaths who often treat neck pain.

METHODOLOGY

Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of osteopaths registered with the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION), an Australian practice-based research network. Demographic, practice and treatment characteristics of osteopaths who 'often' treat neck pain. Data was split into two groups: novice practitioners (up to nine years in clinical practice), and experienced practitioners (10 years or more in clinical practice), and clinical management was compared.

RESULTS

Most (98%) of the 971 osteopaths reported that they treat neck pain often. Of those that treat neck pain often, 58% reported being male. The mean number of patient care hours per week was 28.1 ± 12.1 and the mean number of patient visits per week was 36.7 ± 18.7. There was a statistically significant difference between novice and experienced groups for discussing occupation (p < 0.01; d = 0.26) and stress (p = 0.045; d = 0.13) during their consultations, with a low to medium and low effect size, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates differences in the management strategies of experienced and novice Australian osteopaths that includes utilisation of a multidisciplinary approach to patient management. The results support the conclusion that there are differences in the clinical management strategies employed by experienced versus novice Australian osteopaths.

A national cross-sectional survey of the attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice amongst Spanish osteopaths

Background

Although evidence-based practice (EBP) is largely supported across healthcare professions, its implementation in manual therapy professions such as osteopathy remains limited and debated. There is currently little knowledge of how Spanish osteopaths relate to EBP.

Objectives

The main aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes, skills and use of EBP among Spanish osteopaths. A secondary aim was to identify barriers and facilitators for the adoption of EBP in the Spanish osteopathic context.

Methods

National cross-sectional survey of Spanish osteopaths registered and non-registered to an osteopathic association in Spain. Eligible participants were invited by a range of recruitment strategies including email and social media campaigns to complete the Spanish-translated Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization Survey (EBASE) anonymously online.

Results

A total of 567 osteopaths completed the survey which represents an approximate response rate of 9%. Participant’s attitudes toward EBP were largely positive. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that EBP was necessary in the practice of osteopathy (89.6%) and that professional literature and research findings were useful to their day-to-day practice (88.9%). Levels of perceived skill in EBP were reported as low to moderate with lowest levels for items related to ‘research conduct’. Except reading/reviewing professional literature and using online search engines to find practice-related literature, participant engagement in all other EBP-related activities was generally infrequent. The perceived proportion of clinical practice that was based on clinical research evidence was reported to be very small. Main barriers to EBP uptake included a lack of clinical evidence in osteopathy and insufficient skills for applying research findings. Main facilitators of EBP uptake included access to full-text articles, internet at the workplace and online databases.

Conclusions

Spanish osteopaths were largely supportive of evidence-based practice, had low to moderate skills in EBP and engaged in EBP activities infrequently. Formal regulation of the profession in Spain and the inclusion of osteopathic programs into the university sector would potentially improve EBP skills and use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06128-6.

Skills, attitudes and uptake of evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional study of chiropractors in the Swedish Chiropractic Association

Background

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is integral to the delivery of high-quality health care. Chiropractic has been a licensed health profession in Sweden since 1989, but little is known of the uptake of EBP in this professional group. This study explored the self-reported skills, attitudes and uptake of EBP, and the enablers and barriers of EBP uptake, among licensed chiropractors in Sweden.

Methods

Licensed chiropractors (n = 172) of the Swedish Chiropractic Association (Legitimerade Kiropraktorers Riksorganisation) were invited to participate in an anonymous online questionnaire, using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilisation Survey (EBASE) in February 2019.

Results

Fifty-six (33%) chiropractors completed the survey. Participants were predominantly male, aged 30–49 years, held a Master’s degree, and had received their highest qualification and practiced chiropractic for over a decade. Chiropractors rated their EBP skill-level mostly in the moderate to moderate-high range. The majority of chiropractors reported positive attitudes towards EBP, with most agreeing or strongly agreeing that EBP is necessary in the practice of chiropractic, and that EBP assists in making decisions about patient care. Chiropractors reported an average level of engagement in EBP activities. All participants indicated professional literature and research findings were useful in their day-to-day chiropractic practice. The main perceived enabler of EBP uptake was internet access in the workplace, whereas the main barrier to EBP uptake was lack of clinical evidence in chiropractic.

Conclusions

Participating chiropractors of the Swedish Chiropractic Association were generally favourable of EBP, though only reported modest levels of EBP-related skills and engagement in EBP activities. Our findings suggest future studies investigating interventions focussed on improving chiropractors’ skills and uptake of EBP are warranted.

Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire (HS-EBP): Normative Data and Differential Profiles in Spanish Osteopathic Professionals

The main goal of this study was to obtain normative data of the scores of the Health-Sciences Evidence Based Practice (HS-EBP) questionnaire, and to analyse evidence-based practice (EBP) among potential clusters of osteopathy professionals in Spain. An online descriptive cross-sectional study has been applied. A total number of 443 Spanish practicing osteopaths answered a survey including the 5 dimensions of the HS-EBP questionnaire and sociodemographic, training, and practice variables using the “LimeSurvey” online platform. Results point out that the median scores for each five HS-EBP questionnaire dimensions were 95.00, 86.00, 78.00, 84.00 and 62.00 considering that the range of possible scores in each of the dimensions was: from 12 to 120 in dimensions 1, 4 and 5; from 14–140 in dimension 2; and from 10–100 in dimension 3. A clustering algorithm extracted 6 different profiles across the five HS-EBP latent dimensions: low scores in all dimensions (cluster 1); low scores in all dimensions but with medium scores in dimension 1 (cluster 2); mixed pattern of scores, low in dimensions 2 and 5 and medium in the rest of the dimensions; medium scores in all dimensions (cluster 4); high scores in all dimensions and low scores in dimension 5 (cluster 5); and high scores in all dimensions (cluster 6). Significant relationship was found among the response patterns in the clusters and: academic degree level, EBP training and training level, and work time invested in healthcare activity, research and teaching activity. These results allow a description of the actual level of EBP and differential profiles of Osteopathy care practice in Spain. Knowledge of normative scores of the HS-EBP questionnaire and identification of different predictors of Spanish osteopaths’ EBP, e.g., academic degree, EBP training and training level, work time invested in healthcare activity, research, and teaching activity, and having a working relationship with an accredited educational centre, enable a comprehensive evaluation of the EBP of osteopathic professionals and can also be useful for developing and implementing formative intervention programs for improving EBP practice in osteopathic practice.

The Benefits and Limitations of Evidence-based Practice in Osteopathy

Evidence-based practice (EBP) arises from evidence-based medicine (EBM). The latter represents a movement of thought born in the second half of the 19th century, while the EBP is born since the new millennium, represented by different scientific figures and professional associations. The EBP is the research for the best practical and clinical strategies, with the ultimate goal of determining guidelines. The improvement of manual osteopathic practice derives from the balanced mix of scientific research, operator experience and patient experience. The text reviews the benefits and limitations of EBP in the osteopathic field. We must remember that knowledge, both theoretical and practical, is always evolving and we must not stop at what appears to be a dogma. Science and knowledge are always evolving, and hence, we must always study and update ourselves.