Abstract

BackgroundChiropractic students demonstrate philosophically opposing views about the chiropractic profession. The primary aim was to describe chiropractic students’ responses to statements about chiropractic identity, role, setting, and future direction. A secondary aim was to describe the frequency of internally conflicting responses.MethodsThree datasets from Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand were pooled in a secondary data analysis. Chiropractic students from 25 chiropractic training institutions completed interrelating surveys (combined response rate 21.9%) between 2013 and 2018. The survey instrument investigated student viewpoints about chiropractic professional identity, role, practice setting and future direction of chiropractic practice. Student attitudes about chiropractic were described using weighted proportions to adjust for unequal population sampling across the three geographical regions. The frequency of concordant and discordant student responses was described by combining identity items with items that explored responses about practice role, setting and future direction. The relationship between student characteristics (age, sex, education, association membership and geographical region) and ideologically conflicting responses were assessed using the Chi-squared test and Cramér’s V.ResultsData from 2396 student chiropractors (50.8% female; from Europe 36.2%, North America 49.6% and Australia/New Zealand 14.5%) were analysed. For identity, nearly half of the chiropractic students (weighted 45.1%) agreed that it is important for chiropractors to hold strongly to the traditional chiropractic theory that adjusting the spine corrects “dis-ease” and agreed (weighted 55.5%) that contemporary and evolving scientific evidence is more important than traditional chiropractic principles. The frequency of discordant (ideologically conflicting) student responses ranged from 32.5% for statements about identity versus role, to 51.4% for statements about identity versus future. There was no association between student age, sex and internally conflicting responses. Chiropractic students’ professional association membership status, pre-chiropractic education and geographical region were associated with ideologically conflicting responses.ConclusionsChiropractic students in this analysis show traditional and progressive attitudes towards the chiropractic profession. Individual student responses frequently contradict in terms of professional ideology, but most (approximately half) students demonstrate concordant progressive and mainstream attitudes. Ideological conflict may raise concerns about some students’ ability to learn and make clinical judgements, and potential for disharmony in the chiropractic fraternity.

Highlights

  • Chiropractic students demonstrate philosophically opposing views about the chiropractic profession

  • Individual student responses frequently contradict in terms of professional ideology, but most students demonstrate concordant progressive and mainstream attitudes

  • 76.5% (CI: 74.8–78.2%) of chiropractic students responded that chiropractors should be considered primary health care practitioners, and 23.5% (CI: 21.9– 25.3%) complementary/alternative health care practitioners [n = 2381]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Chiropractic students demonstrate philosophically opposing views about the chiropractic profession. The most documented contemporary ideological subgroups within the chiropractic profession can be broadly characterised by those who support a vitalistic philosophy with a focus on the ‘chiropractic vertebral subluxation’ and those who advocate for a science-based, biopsychosocial and musculoskeletal/spine focus [2, 3]. Others argue that an ongoing devotion to vitalism is an impediment to providing best clinical care and inclusion in multi-disciplinary models of practice [6,7,8]. Proponents of the latter see movement towards a progressive identity centered around musculoskeletal spine care, evidence-based practice, and integration as necessary [9, 10]. Brosnan describes each approach as “an attempt to diversify and expand the profession’s role: one [sciencebased, musculoskeletal/spine focus] by incorporating new approaches for a specific set of conditions; the other [vitalistic] by applying limited approaches to a wider range of conditions” [2]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call