Reframing a debate in chiropractic

The chiropractic profession is 125 years old and has evolved a culture beset with internal conflict. The internal ructions have been particularly noticeable during the last 20 years. The recent resignation of the entire World Federation of Chiropractic Research Committee has again focussed the conflicting views and goals of the “wellness” and “evidence” factions within the profession. These polarising viewpoints are worsening to the degree that there are calls for the profession to break into two separate entities. Key to the recognition of the differences within the profession is the recognition of title for particular sub populations of patients presenting to chiropractors. For many of the sub populations such as sport or paediatrics there has grown appropriate post professional specialist educational training sometimes leading to a protected title. However, this is not occurring in that group of practitioners that choose to focus on wellness care. A recommendation is made that wellness chiropractic be viewed as a post professional specialty program within chiropractic, as it is in medicine and elsewhere, and that recognition follow after appropriate post professional educational programs have been completed, as is customary in the other special interest groups. In order to do so, consensus will be required from all stakeholders within the profession on the level, scope and depth of such programs. Furthermore, it is possible that different jurisdictions around the world may require different post graduate educational levels based on local competitive, legal and professional circumstances. In such cases, transitioning to the higher level over a period of time may be undertaken. Recognition of the wellness specialty by the profession would allow for vertical integration with other healthcare providers as well as help bridge a gap between the entrepreneur and academic groups that would be responsible for creating these programs at tertiary education institutions. Finally, should these programs acquire evidence to underpin them, a process that would be taught within the programs, it is likely that recognition of an extended scope of practice would occur increasing the appeal of chiropractic to the public.

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Background Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. Objective To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. Methods We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. Discussion This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Correction to: Leadership and capacity building in chiropractic research: report from the first CARL cohort

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Leadership and capacity building in chiropractic research: report from the first CARL cohort

The Chiropractic Academy for Research Leadership (CARL) was formed in 2016 in response to a need for a global network of early career researchers and leaders in the chiropractic profession. Thirteen fellows were accepted competitively and have since worked together at residentials and virtually on many research and leadership projects. In 2020, the CARL program ended for this first cohort, and it is now timely to take stock and reflect on the achievements and benefits of the program. In this paper we present the structure of CARL, the scientific and leadership outputs as well as the personal value of CARL for the participating fellows. As a result of the success of the first CARL cohort, organizations from Europe, North America, and Australia have supported a second cohort of 14 CARL fellows, who were competitively accepted into the program in early 2020.

A cross-sectional examination of the profile of chiropractors recruited to the Australian Chiropractic Research Network (ACORN): a sustainable resource for future chiropractic research

ObjectivesThe Australian Chiropractic Research Network (ACORN) practice-based research network (PBRN) cohort was established to provide sustainable infrastructure necessary to address lack of rigorous investigation and to bridge the research–practice gap focused on chiropractic care for future years. This paper presents the profile of chiropractors recruited to the ACORN PBRN, a nationally representative sample of chiropractors working in Australia.DesignCross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a cohort study of chiropractors in Australia.SettingAll registered chiropractors in Australia were invited to participate in the ACORN study and those who completed a practitioner questionnaire and consent form were included in the PBRN cohort.ParticipantsA total of 1680 chiropractors (36%) were recruited to the cohort database. The average age of the PBRN participants is 41.9 years and 63% are male. The vast majority of the PBRN participants hold a university degree.ResultsGeneral practitioners were identified as the most popular referral source for chiropractic care and low back pain and neck pain were the most common conditions ‘often’ treated by the PBRN chiropractors. The chiropractors in this PBRN cohort rated high velocity, low amplitude adjustment/manipulation/mobilisation as the most commonly used technique/method and soft tissue therapy as the most frequently employed musculoskeletal intervention in their patient management.ConclusionsThe ACORN PBRN cohort constitutes the largest coverage of any single healthcare profession via a national voluntary PBRN providing a sustainable resource for future follow-up. The ACORN cohort provides opportunities for further nested substudies related to chiropractic care, chiropractors, their patients and a vast range of broader healthcare issues with a view to helping build a diverse but coordinated research programme and further research capacity building around Australian chiropractic.

A web-based survey of the motivations and challenges faced by emerging researchers in the chiropractic profession

Objective To investigate the motivations, challenges and perceptions of the educational environment of emerging researchers in chiropractic. Methods A descriptive web-based survey of higher-degree chiropractic research students was performed between October and November 2013. The survey consisted of open and closed questions and the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure. Results Twenty-two students currently enrolled in a higher-degree research program participated. Students were most commonly enrolled in a doctor of philosophy program at a part-time rate. Motivations of research were desire to improve the clinical care aspects of chiropractic for the public and belief that chiropractic research is lacking. The greatest challenges were the negative attitudes towards chiropractic, finding enough time to do everything required, and feelings of isolation. The higher-degree research educational environment was perceived to be more positive than negative, with the stimulating nature of research a positive feature. A negative feature of the educational environment was poor undergraduate preparation for higher-degree research. Conclusion This study is the first study to describe higher-degree chiropractic research students. Primary motivations included building research, while challenges included not only negative attitudes toward the chiropractic profession but also negative attitudes toward researchers from within the profession. The higher-degree research educational environment was perceived to be positive. By acknowledging the issues that surround emerging researchers in chiropractic, the profession is better placed to foster academics and build research capacity.