» Articles » PMID: 27822360

An Indication of Current Views of Australian General Practitioners Towards Chiropractic and Osteopathy: a Cross-sectional Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2016 Nov 9
PMID 27822360
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: While the role of complementary medicine therapies such as chiropractic and osteopathy is yet to be clearly delineated in the Australian context, demand for these services remains high. The attitudes of general practitioners towards chiropractors and osteopaths may have played a part in producing this outcome. However, this view is based on data that were more than 10 years old. Current anecdotal evidence suggests that the previous level of support may be declining in sections of the Australian medical profession. An assessment of the current views of general practitioners towards chiropractors and osteopaths is called for. The results being reported here represent the first stage of this assessment.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was designed as a quantitative descriptive study using an anonymous online survey that included closed and open-ended questions with opportunities provided for free text. The target population was Australian general practitioners. Inclusion criteria included current medical registration, membership of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and currently practicing as a general practitioner in Australia. The data being reported here were collected between May and December, 2014.

Results: There were 630 respondents to the online survey during this period representing a response rate of 2.6 %. Results were not uniform for the two professions. More general practitioners believed chiropractic education was not evidence-based compared to osteopathic education (70 % and 50 % respectively) while scope of practice was viewed as similar for both professions. A majority of general practitioners had never referred a patient to either profession (chiropractic: 60 %; osteopathy: 66 %) with approximately two-thirds not interested in learning more about their education (chiropractors: 68 %; osteopaths: 63 %).

Conclusions: This study provides an indication of the current views of Australian general practitioners towards chiropractors and osteopaths. The findings suggest that attitudes may have become less favourable with a growing intolerance towards both professions. If confirmed, this has the potential to impact health service provision. The results from this cross-sectional study suggest that obtaining representative general practitioner views using online surveys is difficult and another approach is needed to supplement or replace the current recruitment strategy.'

Citing Articles

Osteopathy Referrals to and from General Practitioners: Secondary Analysis of Practitioner Characteristics from an Australian Practice-Based Research Network.

Vaughan B, Fleischmann M, Grace S, Engel R, Fitzgerald K, Steel A Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(1).

PMID: 38200954 PMC: 10778730. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12010048.


Factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia: a scoping review.

Wiggins D, Downie A, Engel R, Brown B Chiropr Man Therap. 2022; 30(1):19.

PMID: 35421996 PMC: 9011944. DOI: 10.1186/s12998-022-00428-2.


Prevalence of Chiropractic-Specific Terminology on Chiropractors' Websites in the United Kingdom With Comparison to Australia: An Analysis of Samples.

Young K, Theroux J J Chiropr Humanit. 2022; 28:15-21.

PMID: 35002574 PMC: 8720836. DOI: 10.1016/j.echu.2021.10.001.


Service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017.

Lystad R, Brown B, Swain M, Engel R Chiropr Man Therap. 2020; 28(1):49.

PMID: 32951611 PMC: 7504850. DOI: 10.1186/s12998-020-00338-1.


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

Moore C, Leaver A, Sibbritt D, Adams J Chiropr Man Therap. 2019; 27:33.

PMID: 31404389 PMC: 6683557. DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0254-y.


References
1.
Murthy V, Sibbritt D, Adams J . An integrative review of complementary and alternative medicine use for back pain: a focus on prevalence, reasons for use, influential factors, self-perceived effectiveness, and communication. Spine J. 2015; 15(8):1870-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.04.049. View

2.
Wardle J, Sibbritt D, Adams J . Referrals to chiropractors and osteopaths: a survey of general practitioners in rural and regional New South Wales, Australia. Chiropr Man Therap. 2013; 21(1):5. PMC: 3599860. DOI: 10.1186/2045-709X-21-5. View

3.
Langworthy J, Birkelid J . General practice and chiropractic in Norway: how well do they communicate and what do GPs want to know?. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001; 24(9):576-81. DOI: 10.1067/mmt.2001.118983. View

4.
Myers S, Xue C, Cohen M, Phelps K, Lewith G . The legitimacy of academic complementary medicine. Med J Aust. 2012; 197(2):69-70. DOI: 10.5694/mja12.10491. View

5.
Ernst E . Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2007; 100(7):330-8. PMC: 1905885. DOI: 10.1177/014107680710000716. View