The use of nutritional guidance within chiropractic patient management: a survey of 333 chiropractors from the ACORN practice-based research network

Chiropractic care and research priorities for the pediatric population: a cross-sectional survey of Quebec chiropractors

BACKGROUND

Chiropractors commonly treat pediatric patients within their private practices. The objectives of this study were (1) to identify the treatment techniques and health advice used by Quebec chiropractors with pediatric patients; (2) to explore the research priorities of Quebec chiropractors for the pediatric population; and (3) to identify Quebec chiropractors' training in the field of pediatric chiropractics.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among all licensed Quebec chiropractors (Qc, Canada). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all quantitative variables.

RESULTS

The results showed that among the 245 respondents (22.8% response rate), practitioners adapted their treatment techniques based on their patients' age group, thus using softer techniques with younger pediatric patients and slowly gravitating toward techniques used with adults when patients reached the age of six. In terms of continuing education, chiropractors reported an average of 7.87 h of training on the subject per year, which mostly came from either Quebec's College of Chiropractors (OCQ) (54.7%), written articles (46.9%) or seminars and conferences (43.7%). Both musculoskeletal (MSK) and viscerosomatic conditions were identified as high research priorities by the clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Quebec chiropractors adapt their treatment techniques to pediatric patients. In light of limited sources of continuing education in the field of pediatric chiropractics, practitioners mostly rely on the training provided by their provincial college and scientific publications. According to practitioners, future research priorities for pediatric care should focus on both MSK conditions and non-MSK conditions.

Future Research by the Australian Chiropractic Profession: Analysis of Comments and Suggestions From a Nationwide Survey of Academics and Practitioners

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across listed research domains and to seek their views on existing chiropractic research strategies. Concurrent objectives were to gain insight into the perspectives on characteristics of research and solicit ideas and suggestions for future research from both groups.

METHODS

This study used a mixed-method research design to collect data using an online survey portal. Australian chiropractic academics (n = 220) and practicing chiropractors who were also members of a nationally representative, practice-based research network database (n = 1680) were invited to participate. Data were collected (February 19, 2019, to May 24, 2019). The free-text data were analyzed primarily via semantic coding and verbatim referential units in cases where the category was an exact match for the textual data. Content analyses of the qualitative data were presented in a tabulated and narrative manner as identified domains. Selected representative examples were provided verbatim.

RESULTS

The response rate for the survey was 44% for full-time equivalent academics, 8% for casuals and part-time chiropractic academics, and 21.5% for Australian Chiropractic Research Network database chiropractic practitioners. Open-text data comprised a narrower focus on musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and opposition or reservations by academics and some practitioners toward the research agenda of those espousing traditional concepts and terminology. Comments from both groups illustrate the strongly held views that characterize divergent factions of the chiropractic profession. Some practitioners were highly critical of the narrow focus and epistemological paradigm of Australian university-based research, while others were strongly supportive of the traditional focus of the Australian Spinal Research Foundation. Australian academics at the 4 university-based programs held the view that MSK and spinal pain, for which some evidence already exists, should be the priority of future research, building on what is known. Practitioners believed that future research should be directed toward expanded areas such as basic science, younger populations, and non-MSK conditions. Respondents were sharply divided on attitudes toward traditional chiropractic terminology, concepts, and philosophy and the utility of future research on these topics.

CONCLUSION

Our qualitative findings suggest there is a division in the Australian chiropractic profession regarding research direction and priorities. This divide exists between academics and researchers and within field practitioners. This study highlights the attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of important stakeholder groups, which should be considered by decision-makers when formulating research policy, strategy, and prioritization of funding.

The Swiss chiropractic practice-based research network: a population-based cross-sectional study to inform future musculoskeletal research

The Swiss chiropractic practice-based research network (PBRN) is a nationwide project developed in collaboration with patients, clinicians, and academic stakeholders to advance musculoskeletal epidemiologic research. The aim of this study was to describe the clinician population recruited and representativeness of this PBRN to inform future collaboration. A population-based cross-sectional study was performed. PBRN clinician characteristics were described and factors related to motivation (operationalised as VAS score ≥ 70) to participate in a subsequent patient cohort pilot study were assessed. Among 326 eligible chiropractors, 152 enrolled in the PBRN (47% participation). The PBRN was representative of the larger Swiss chiropractic population with regards to age, language, and geographic distribution. Of those enrolled, 39% were motivated to participate in a nested patient cohort pilot study. Motivation was associated with age 40 years or older versus 39 years or younger (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.2), and with a moderate clinic size (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.7) or large clinic size (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.0-7.8) versus solo practice. The Swiss chiropractic PBRN has enrolled almost half of all Swiss chiropractors and has potential to facilitate collaborative practice-based research to improve musculoskeletal health care quality.Trial registration: Swiss chiropractic PBRN (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05046249); Swiss chiropractic cohort (Swiss ChiCo) pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05116020).

Making a case for genomics in chiropractic education

OBJECTIVE

To determine if an existing course in genetics should be revised to refocus on the topic of genomics and its impact on health and primary care, a survey of chiropractors was conducted regarding genomics and patient care.

METHODS

A short survey was designed to ascertain chiropractors' knowledge and use of genomics in their practices, particularly regarding direct to consumer genetic testing. Nine closed-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions were included. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate relationships between close-ended responses. Content analysis was conducted on the final open-ended question that queried respondents for further comments.

RESULTS

There were 181 completed surveys returned. Patients do ask chiropractors about their own direct to consumer genetic testing results-42% indicated that they are approached by patients 1-3 times per month to discuss genetics/genomics. Knowledge of genomics varies among chiropractors, yet 51% feel that teaching genomics is moderately (31%) or extremely (20%) important.

CONCLUSION

An introductory course in clinical genomics is necessary to prepare a chiropractor for patient care.

The Role of Chiropractic Care in Providing Health Promotion and Clinical Preventive Services for Adult Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice. Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services. Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of experienced practitioners and faculty, primarily but not exclusively chiropractors, rated the recommendations by using the formal consensus methodology established by the RAND Corporation/University of California. Results: The Delphi consensus process was conducted during January-February 2021. The 65-member Delphi panel reached a high level of consensus on appropriate application of clinical preventive services for screening and health promotion counseling within the chiropractic scope of practice. Interprofessional collaboration for the successful delivery of clinical preventive services was emphasized. Recommendations were made on primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions: Application of this guideline in chiropractic practice may facilitate consistent and appropriate use of screening and preventive services and foster interprofessional collaboration to promote clinical preventive services and contribute to improved public health.

Prevalence and factors associated with the use of primary headache diagnostic criteria by chiropractors

Background

The diagnosis of primary headaches assists health care providers in their decision-making regarding patient treatment, co-management and further evaluation. Chiropractors are popular health care providers for those with primary headaches. The aim of this study is to examine the clinical management factors associated with chiropractors who report the use of primary headache diagnostic criteria.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was distributed between August and November 2016 to a random sample of Australian chiropractors who are members of a practice-based research network (n = 1050) who had reported ‘often’ providing treatment for patients with headache disorders to report on practitioner approaches to headache diagnosis, management, outcome measures and multidisciplinary collaboration. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to assess the factors that are associated with chiropractors who report using International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) primary headache diagnostic criteria.

Results

With a response rate of 36% (n = 381), the majority of chiropractor’s report utilising ICHD primary headache diagnostic criteria (84.6%). The factors associated with chiropractors who use ICHD primary headache diagnostic criteria resulting from the regression analysis include a belief that the use of ICHD primary headache criteria influences the management of patients with primary headaches (OR = 7.86; 95%CI: 3.15, 19.60); the use of soft tissue therapies to the neck/shoulders for tension headache management (OR = 4.33; 95%CI: 1.67, 11.19); a belief that primary headache diagnostic criteria are distinct for the diagnosis of primary headaches (OR = 3.64; 95%CI: 1.58, 8.39); the use of headache diaries (OR = 3.52; 95%CI: 1.41, 8.77); the use of ICHD criteria improves decision-making regarding primary headache patient referral/co-management (OR = 2.35; 95%CI: 1.01, 5.47); referral to investigate a headache red-flag (OR = 2.67; 95%CI: 1.02, 6.96) and not referring headache patients to assist headache prevention (OR = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.80).

Conclusion

Four out of five chiropractors managing headache are engaged in the use of primary headache diagnostic criteria. This practice is likely to influence practitioner clinical decision-making around headache patient management including their co-management with other health care providers. These findings call for a closer assessment of headache characteristics of chiropractic patient populations and for further enquiry to explore the role of chiropractors within interdisciplinary primary headache management.

The prevalence and determinants of physical activity promotion by Australian chiropractors: A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Approximately one in four adults do not meet the World Health Organisation physical activity recommendations. While health promotion (i.e., physical activity) is common within chiropractic settings, little is known about chiropractors discussing this public health issue with their patients. The aim of our study is to examine the prevalence and characteristics of Australian chiropractors who frequently discuss patient physical activity.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey of chiropractors focusing upon practitioner characteristics, practice settings and clinical management characteristics. Regression analyses were conducted on 1924 survey respondents to identify factors associated with practitioners who frequently discuss physical activity with patients.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of Australian chiropractors reported 'often' discussing physical activity as part of their patient management. The strongest factors associated with chiropractors who frequently discuss physical activity obtained from the multivariate analysis include: often discussing occupational health and safety (odds ratio [OR] = 6.10; 95%CI: 3.88, 9.59), often discussing diet/nutrition (OR = 4.56; 95%CI: 3.12, 6.66), often discussing smoking/drugs/alcohol (OR = 4.41; 95%CI: 2.06, 9.40), often use of specific exercise therapy/rehabilitation/injury taping (OR = 3.76; 95%CI: 2.62, 5.39) and often caring for athletes or sports people (OR = 2.18; 95%CI: 1.56, 3.06) within their practice setting.

CONCLUSION

Discussing physical activity is a frequent feature of patient management among most chiropractors in Australia. The association between these practitioners and discussion of other costly public health burdens could suggest chiropractors have a valuable role to play in chronic disease prevention. Given the growing need for practitioner-led promotion of patient physical activity further research examination of the role and contribution of chiropractors in promoting this important public health topic among patients and communities is needed.

Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study

Background

Recent studies have shown that psychological factors, attitudes and beliefs impact on the quality of chiropractic student clinical decisions. This association has not been studied among qualified chiropractors. Our objective was to investigate if personality, psychological factors and/or unorthodox beliefs among chiropractors are related to choices of management in specific clinical scenarios.

Method

In February 2018, a subsample of chiropractors (N = 700) from a practitioner-based research network in Australia known as ACORN (N = 1680), were invited to respond to an on-line anonymous questionnaire. Questions included items relating to management of specific clinical scenarios, intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and the 'Big-5' personality score, adoption of a prescriptive technique system, self-rating of chiropractic abilities, and the level of importance of subluxation and chiropractic philosophy in the delivery of care. Descriptive analysis was to be reported and associations examined between i) personality and psychology factors, unorthodox beliefs and ii) scores obtained for management of specific clinical scenarios, numbers of interdisciplinary referrals, and guideline-based X-ray use.

Results

The number of respondents was 141 (20%) and 33 of their responses were largely incomplete resulting in a final response rate of 108 (15.4%). In addition, some questions were left unanswered. These related mainly to IU and Big-5 personality measurements. Some sample characteristics (age, number of patients per week, hours worked per week) were similar to the larger ACORN project sample. However, the low response rate indicated that the final study sample was unlikely to be truly representative of the study population and the low number of participants made association testing unsuitable.

Conclusion and recommendations

The low response rate and small study sample in this study made any substantive analysis inappropriate. For these reasons, the study was not concluded. However, the potential reasons for the low response from this large database of volunteer research participants are of interest and need to be investigated. Clearly, it is necessary to engage this population better to explore sensitive issues such as personality inventories and different practice profiles in the interest of effective health care delivery and patient safety.