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

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lyndon G. Amorin-Woods MPH , Beau L. Woods MPH , Benjamin L. Mullings PhD , Dein Vindigni PhD , Barrett E. Losco MPA
{"title":"Future Research by the Australian Chiropractic Profession: Analysis of Comments and Suggestions From a Nationwide Survey of Academics and Practitioners","authors":"Lyndon G. Amorin-Woods MPH ,&nbsp;Beau L. Woods MPH ,&nbsp;Benjamin L. Mullings PhD ,&nbsp;Dein Vindigni PhD ,&nbsp;Barrett E. Losco MPA","doi":"10.1016/j.jmpt.2023.05.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors<span> 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.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>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 </span>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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16132,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475423000283","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

澳大利亚脊骨按摩专业的未来研究:来自全国学者和从业者调查的意见和建议分析
目的本研究的目的是确定和比较澳大利亚执业脊医和学者在列出的研究领域的研究重点,并寻求他们对现有脊医研究策略的看法。同时的目标是深入了解研究特征的观点,并征求两组对未来研究的想法和建议。方法本研究采用混合方法研究设计,使用在线调查门户网站收集数据。澳大利亚的脊椎指压治疗师学者(n = 220)和执业的脊椎指压治疗师,他们也是一个具有全国代表性的、基于实践的研究网络数据库的成员(n = 1680)被邀请参加。数据采集时间为2019年2月19日至2019年5月24日。在类别与文本数据完全匹配的情况下,主要通过语义编码和逐字参考单位对自由文本数据进行分析。定性数据的内容分析以表格和叙述的方式作为识别域呈现。逐字逐句地提供了选定的有代表性的例子。结果调查的回复率:全职同等学历的学者为44%,业余和兼职脊医学者为8%,澳大利亚脊医研究网络数据库脊医从业者为21.5%。开放文本数据包括对肌肉骨骼(MSK)条件的狭隘关注,以及学术界和一些从业者对那些支持传统概念和术语的研究议程的反对或保留意见。来自两组的评论说明了强烈持有的观点,这些观点是脊椎指压治疗专业不同派别的特征。一些从业者对澳大利亚以大学为基础的研究的狭隘焦点和认识论范式持高度批评态度,而另一些人则强烈支持澳大利亚脊柱研究基金会的传统焦点。这4个大学项目的澳大利亚学者认为,MSK和脊柱疼痛之间的关系,已经有了一些证据,应该是未来研究的重点,建立在已知的基础上。从业人员认为,未来的研究应该指向更广泛的领域,如基础科学、年轻人群和非msk条件。受访者对传统脊椎指压疗法的术语、概念和哲学的态度以及对这些主题的未来研究的效用存在严重分歧。结论我们的定性研究结果表明,澳大利亚捏脊专业在研究方向和重点方面存在分歧。这种分歧存在于学术界和研究人员之间,以及领域内的从业者之间。本研究强调了重要利益相关者群体的态度、意见和看法,决策者在制定研究政策、战略和资助优先次序时应该考虑这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
63
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is an international and interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of conservative health care principles and practices. The JMPT is the premier biomedical publication in the chiropractic profession and publishes peer reviewed, research articles and the Journal''s editorial board includes leading researchers from around the world. The Journal publishes original primary research and review articles of the highest quality in relevant topic areas. The JMPT addresses practitioners and researchers needs by adding to their clinical and basic science knowledge and by informing them about relevant issues that influence health care practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信