Search

Abstract Background Chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report low back pain (LBP). However, the burden of LBP in this occupational group has not been synthesized in the literature. This systematic review aims to describe the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to May 1, 2023. Eligible studies were cross-sectional, cohort, or case–control studies investigating the prevalence, incidence, associated factors, or risk factors of LBP in chiropractors or chiropractic students. Reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the appropriate JBI Checklists for the observational study design. We descriptively synthesized studies that were rated as low or moderate risk of bias. Results Of 2012 citations screened, we included 2 cross-sectional studies in the evidence synthesis (1 study rated as moderate risk of bias on chiropractors, and 1 rated as low risk of bias on chiropractic students). For chiropractors, the 12-month prevalence of work-related overuse injuries to the low back was 35.6% (95% CI 29.1, 42.0) in women and 22.4% (95% CI 16.3, 29.6) in men. The 12-month prevalence of work-related acute physical injuries to the low back in chiropractors were 3.4% (95% CI 1.6, 6.8) for women and 0.7% (95% CI 0.1, 3.7) for men. Among chiropractic students, the 1-week prevalence of LBP was 69% (95% CI 64.8, 73.0). This was higher among female students (72.5%, 95% CI 67.1, 77.4) and lower among male students (64%, 95% CI 57.0, 70.6). Conclusion There is limited high-quality evidence on the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. Our systematic review provides a synthesis of the body of literature, highlighting that chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report LBP. Future high-quality research is needed to address the incidence, associated factors, and risk factors of LBP.

Abstract Background Research enables a profession to establish its cultural authority, validate its professional roles and ensure ongoing improvement in the quality of its academic programming. Despite the clear importance of research, a mature research culture has eluded the chiropractic profession. A fostering institutional culture that enables, values, and supports research activity is essential to building research capacity. Our study aimed to collect information about the existing research capacity and culture at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) and explore the views, attitudes and experiences of faculty members regarding research. Methods We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study with quantitative priority between April and July, 2023. Quantitative data were collected using the Research Capacity and Culture (RCC) tool. Survey results guided the qualitative data collected from four faculty focus groups with varying levels of research experience. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics by domain and stratified by research education and workload. The qualitative data were thematically analyzed and then integrated with the quantitative results to provide deeper meaning to the results. Results The faculty survey response rate was 42% (59/144). Attributes at the organization or department level were consistently rated as either moderate or high; however, research skills at an individual level were more variable and influenced by factors such as research workload and highest research-related academic qualification. Qualitative focus group data were categorized under four themes: institutional factors, resource allocation, career pathways and personal factors. Lower scores for survey items related to mentorship, research planning and ensuring faculty research career pathways, as well as the identified workload and time-related barriers (e.g., other work roles and desire for work/life balance) for engaging in research were supported by each of the four themes. Research motivators included keeping the brain stimulated, developing skills and increasing job satisfaction. Conclusion The quantitative and qualitative information in this study provides a baseline evaluation for RCC and identifies key factors impacting RCC at the CMCC. This information is critical for planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating future interventions to enhance research capacity. Ultimately, these efforts are aimed at maturing the research culture of the chiropractic profession.

Abstract Background Despite increases in musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) in Canada, evidence suggests utilization of chiropractic services has remained relatively stable over time. Understanding the extent to which chiropractors are consulted and factors associated with their utilization may suggest factors related to accessing care. We assessed the change in prevalence and characteristics of Canadians seeking chiropractic care across two time periods 2001–2010 and 2015–2018. Methods We used national cross-sectional data from seven cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey between 2001 and 2018. The survey included Canadians aged 12 years and older living in private dwellings in all provinces and territories. National annual weighted prevalence and age-standardized weighted prevalence (and 95% confidence intervals) of chiropractic utilization were calculated. We calculated prevalence of chiropractic utilization stratified by demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle and health-related variables. Crude linear trends and change in prevalence from 2001 to 2010 were assessed using linear regression models. Results The national annual prevalence of Canadians consulting a chiropractor in the previous 12 months slightly increased from 11.0% (95% CI 10.8, 11.3) in 2001 to 11.4% (95%CI 11.1, 11.7) in 2010, and in those reporting receiving regular health care from a chiropractor from 7.5% (95%CI 7.2, 7.7) in 2015 to 7.9% (95%CI 7.7, 8.2) in 2018. Prevalence of utilization varied by province, highest in the Western provinces but lowest in Atlantic provinces. The age-specific prevalence of chiropractic utilization was highest in those aged 35–49 years and remained stable over time, except for slight increase in those aged 65–79 years. A higher percentage of Canadians identifying as white, Canadian-born, in the highest quintile of household income, overweight, physically active and in excellent health reported seeking chiropractic services. The most common reported chronic conditions measured in the survey among Canadians consulting chiropractors were chronic back problems, arthritis, fibromyalgia and headaches. Conclusion The national prevalence of utilization of chiropractic services among Canadians slightly increased over time but varied by province and respondents’ socioeconomic and health characteristics. Chronic back problems were the most common reported chronic condition. This comprehensive population-based study on chiropractic utilization in Canada can be used to inform decisions concerning health human resources and access to rehabilitation care for MSD.

Abstract Background A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. Objectives To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. Methods Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. Results We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1–2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. Conclusions Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. Trial registration CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO)

Abstract Background Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. Methods Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010–2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014–2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. Results Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62–63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62–68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65–0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77–0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56–0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71–0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54–0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35–0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58–0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16–0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06–0.44). Conclusion In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Abstract Background There is a paucity of research assessing cultural competency among Canadian chiropractors. Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) measure cultural competency among Canadian chiropractors, (2) understand chiropractors’ perspectives of challenges and attitudes regarding the delivery of chiropractic services to equity-seeking communities, and (3) assess contextual factors associated with cultural competency. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA) (May–July 2021). The survey instrument consisted of 57 questions related to demographics, cultural competency, perceptions about health disparities, and challenges in delivery of rehabilitation. Cultural competency was measured using the Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity and Cultural Competence Behaviours subscales of the Cultural Competence Assessment Instrument. We conducted a multivariate linear regression to assess factors that may be associated with cultural competency. Results A total of 3143 CCA members responded (response rate of 41%). Mean scores for the Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity subscale were 5.8/7 (95% CI 5.7; 5.8) and 4.2/7 (95% CI 4.1; 4.2) for the Cultural Competence Behaviour subscale. Most chiropractors (72–78%) reported observing important cultural health disparities across various care-related outcomes. Cost of services and language were identified as barriers to providing care to equity-seeking communities. Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity scores were weakly associated with gender (men), years of clinical practice, cultural health disparities, the statement “I think some people have an agenda to look for discrimination even where it does not exist (DEI attitudes),” race (Caucasian), and prior DEI training, (R2 = 0.15, p

Abstract Background Little is known about the diversity of the chiropractic profession with respect to gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and community of practice. This knowledge is important as profession representation of key equity seeking groups may impact quality of care and access for vulnerable communities. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to explore the diversity of the chiropractic profession in Canada. Methods All registered members of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (N = 7721) were invited to participate in a web-based survey between May and June 2021. Survey questions explored diversity with respect to personal demographics (age, sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, language) and practice characteristics (community setting, practice type). Where possible, survey data was compared to data from the 2016 Census of the Canadian population. Results We received a total of 3143 survey responses (response rate—41%). The average age of our sample was 44.7 years (standard deviation 12.7). Forty-five percent were female with the same proportion (45.2%) self-identifying as women. Ninety-one percent of the sample self-identified as heterosexual. With respect to race, 80% of respondents were Caucasian. Seventy percent of chiropractors in our sample identified with Canadian ancestry and 29% with European ancestry. In comparison to the Canadian population, some visible minorities were underrepresented. The greatest discrepancy between the Canadian population and our sample was in the proportion of Black and Indigenous chiropractors. With respect to ethnicity, chiropractors identifying themselves with Canadian ancestry were overrepresented in our sample compared to others, specifically those with North American Indigenous and South, Central and Latin American ancestry. Sixty-one percent of chiropractors practiced in major cities and most work in interdisciplinary clinics (42% Complementary and Alternative Medicine and 33% rehabilitation). Conclusions This study provides an initial description of diversity within the chiropractic profession in Canada. Women represent less than 50% of the profession nationally. Overall, there is little racial and ethnic diversity in the chiropractic profession compared to the Canadian population, with Black and Indigenous peoples being underrepresented. Future work should focus strategies to foster the development of a more diverse chiropractic workforce.

Abstract Background Diagnostic imaging is useful for assessing low back pain (LBP) when a clinician suspects a specific underlying pathology. Evidence-based imaging guidelines assist clinicians in appropriately determining the need for imaging when assessing LBP. A previous study reported high adherence to three clinical guidelines, with utilization rate of 12.3% in imaging of LBP patients attending a chiropractic teaching clinic. A new imaging guideline for spinal disorders has been published and used in teaching. Thus, the aims of our study were to assess the adherence to the new guideline and X-ray utilization in new episodes of LBP. Methods We conducted a historical clinical cohort study using patient electronic health record audits at seven teaching clinics over a period of 20 months. Records of patients who were at least 18 years of age, presented with a new onset of LBP, and consented to data collection were included. Abstracted data included patient demographics, the number and type of red flags, and the decision to image. Rate of guideline adherence (proportion of those not recommended for imaging, given no red flags) and rate of image utilization were descriptively analyzed. Results We included 498 patients in this study. At least 81% of included patients had one or more red flags reported. The most commonly reported individual red flag was age ≥ 50 (43.8%) followed by pain at rest (15.7%). In those referred for imaging, age ≥ 50 (93.3%) was the most frequently reported red flag. No red flag(s) were identified in 93 patient records, and none were referred for imaging of their LBP, yielding an adherence rate of 100% (95% CI 96, 100%). A total of 17 of 498 patients were recommended for imaging for their low back pain, resulting in an imaging utilization rate of 3.4% (95% CI 1.8, 5.0%). Conclusion The imaging utilization rate was 3.4%, lower than 12.3% previously reported at a chiropractic teaching clinic. None without red flags were referred for imaging, yielding a 100%, adherence rate to current LBP imaging guidelines. Future research should consider currency of guideline, accuracy of red flags and factors influencing clinicians’ decision, when assessing imaging adherence rates.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study is to develop a list of performance indicators to assess the status of the chiropractic profession in Canada. Method We conducted a 4-round modified Delphi technique (March 2018–January 2020) to reach consensus among experts and stakeholders on key status indicators for the chiropractic profession using online questionnaires. During the first round, experts suggested indicators for preidentified themes. Through the following two rounds, the importance and feasibility of each indicator was rated on an 11-point Likert scale, and their related potential sources of data identified. In the final round, provincial stakeholders were recruited to rate the importance of the indicators within the 90th percentile and identified those most important to their organisation. Results The first round generated 307 preliminary indicators of which 42 were selected for the remaining rounds, and eleven were preferentially selected by most of the provincial stakeholders. Experts agreed the feasibility of all indicators was high, and that data could be collected through a combination of data obtained from professional liability insurance records and survey(s) of the general population, patients, and chiropractors. Conclusions A set of performance indicators to assess the status of the Canadian chiropractic profession emerged from a scientific and stakeholder consensus.

Abstract Background Knowledge about patient satisfaction and experience with care they receive can guide practitioners in establishing doctor-patient relationships and improve health outcomes. Although evidence suggests high patient satisfaction with chiropractic care in general, there is limited understanding of the expectations and experiences of athletes receiving sports chiropractic care. Objective To explore the athletes’ expectations and experiences with care received from sports chiropractors, and their perceptions of relevant areas of future research. Methods A qualitative study was conducted through an interpretivist lens exploring the perspectives of elite and competitive athletes receiving care from sports chiropractors in Canada. Participants were purposively recruited and interviewed until saturation was reached. Two research team members independently analyzed the interview transcripts using a conventional approach to content analysis. Content was inductively coded and discussed by the research team to generate categories. Results We interviewed 18 participants between December 2018 and March 2020, 14 were national level athletes participating in sports ranging from paddling to combat sports. Reported reasons for seeking care included acute care, injury prevention, enhancing performance and maintenance care. Generated categories were organized under topics of experience with care, expectations of care, and research agenda. Participants experienced a variety of interventions, reassurance, varying treatment times, and reported positive impact on their athletic performance. They expected musculoskeletal assessment and treatment including at and beyond the injury site, symptom improvement, good communication and expertise from the chiropractor. Some participants suggested interpersonal and interprofessional communication can be improved, in particular the level of collaboration with other members of their health care team. Overall, participants reported a high level of trust and satisfaction with care received from sports chiropractors. From our participants’ perspective, suggested areas of research should focus on injury mechanics and prevention, impact of care on performance, and interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions In general, participants were very satisfied with care. Overall, participants’ expectations and experiences aligned but changed over time. Addressing the findings of this study can be used to enhance the quality of care provided to athletes from sports chiropractors, as well as inform future research agendas. Further work assessing if athletes in other competitive levels have similar experiences and expectations is needed.

Background: Chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report low back pain (LBP). However, the burden of LBP in this occupational group has not been synthesized in the literature. This systematic review aims to describe the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to May 1, 2023. Eligible studies were cross-sectional, cohort, or case–control studies investigating the prevalence, incidence, associated factors, or risk factors of LBP in chiropractors or chiropractic students. Reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the appropriate JBI Checklists for the observational study design. We descriptively synthesized studies that were rated as low or moderate risk of bias. Results: Of 2012 citations screened, we included 2 cross-sectional studies in the evidence synthesis (1 study rated as moderate risk of bias on chiropractors, and 1 rated as low risk of bias on chiropractic students). For chiropractors, the 12-month prevalence of work-related overuse injuries to the low back was 35.6% (95% CI 29.1, 42.0) in women and 22.4% (95% CI 16.3, 29.6) in men. The 12-month prevalence of work-related acute physical injuries to the low back in chiropractors were 3.4% (95% CI 1.6, 6.8) for women and 0.7% (95% CI 0.1, 3.7) for men. Among chiropractic students, the 1-week prevalence of LBP was 69% (95% CI 64.8, 73.0). This was higher among female students (72.5%, 95% CI 67.1, 77.4) and lower among male students (64%, 95% CI 57.0, 70.6). Conclusion: There is limited high-quality evidence on the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. Our systematic review provides a synthesis of the body of literature, highlighting that chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report LBP. Future high-quality research is needed to address the incidence, associated factors, and risk factors of LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Chiropractors have diverse views of practice, but the impact on their patient profiles and treatment approaches remains unclear. We assessed the association between chiropractors’ view of practice (unorthodox versus orthodox) and patient encounter-level characteristics among chiropractors who practice in Ontario, Canada. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using Ontario Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (O-COAST) data. In O-COAST, Ontario chiropractors were randomly recruited from a list of registered chiropractors in 2015 and recorded up to 100 consecutive patient encounters. We classified chiropractors’ response regarding their views of practice as unorthodox when viewing “vertebral subluxation as an encumbrance to health that is corrected to benefit overall well-being”; other views were considered orthodox. Patient encounter-level characteristics included: (1) non-musculoskeletal reason-for-encounter; (2) subluxation as diagnosis; (3) duration of encounter (log-transformed for modeling); (4) unimodal manipulative treatment; and (5) patient health characteristics (good health status, some activity limitations). We conducted multilevel logistic regression to assess the association between view of practice and aforementioned characteristics, accounting for potential confounders and clustering of encounters within chiropractors. The multilevel models had two levels (level 1—patient encounter level; level 2—chiropractor level), with level 1 patient encounters nested within level 2 chiropractors. Results We included 40 chiropractors (mean age = 43.4 years, SD = 11.5) and 3,378 chiropractor-patient encounters. The 2,332 unique patients identified had a mean age of 48.5 years (SD = 18.5). Chiropractors with unorthodox views had higher odds of having patients with a non-musculoskeletal reason-for-encounter (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 16.5, 95% CI 3.2–84.0) and subluxation as diagnosis (aOR 63.0, 95% CI 4.2–949.1). Encounters of chiropractors with unorthodox views were 0.6 times shorter than those with orthodox views (95% CI 0.4–0.9). Chiropractor level explained 32%, 75%, and 49% of the variability in non-musculoskeletal reason-for-encounter, subluxation as diagnosis, and encounter duration, respectively. We observed no association between unorthodox view and unimodal manipulative treatment or patient health characteristics. Conclusions Chiropractors’ unorthodox view of practice was associated with treating non-musculoskeletal conditions, subluxation as diagnosis, and shorter duration of encounter. Chiropractor level explained a high proportion of variability in these outcomes. Findings have implications for understanding chiropractic practice and informing interprofessional collaboration.

Abstract Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Abstract Background Chiropractors are a particular subset of health care professionals that reportedly suffer occupational musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), yet they have received minimal attention to date regarding mitigating risks of occupational injury. Our study determined the prevalence of occupationally-related MSDs in the preceding year, their bodily distribution, severity, and practice-related changes in practicing chiropractors in the province of Ontario. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of chiropractors who were members of the Ontario Chiropractic Association (OCA) from January to March 2019. A three-part online survey was developed to ask chiropractors about specific details of MSDs they experienced in the past year and any practice-related changes they made as a result. Responses from participants provided both quantitative and qualitative data. Prevalence estimates were derived for quantitative data. Qualitative data were stratified by themes that were further divided into categories and subcategories. Demographic variables of the respondents and OCA membership were compared to determine representativeness. Results From the 432 responses (11.8% response rate), 59.1% reported experiencing an occupationally-related MSD in the past year. Survey respondents were demographically representative of the OCA membership. MSDs were most commonly reported for the lower back (38.3%), wrists/hands (38.1%) and neck (37.4%). Positioning/performing manipulation was the most common occupational activity for MSD of the upper extremity (53.1%) and lower back (34.8%). Chiropractors largely reported their MSDs did not prevent them from doing their normal work (77.4%), despite the fact that 43.2% reported experiencing their MSDs for more than 30 days in the previous year. Common reported work modifications were grouped under themes of practice and physical changes. Practice changes included reducing patient volume, hiring personnel and scheduling. Physical changes included using different office equipment, selecting different techniques requiring lower force and altering their hand contacts or body position when treating patients. Conclusions One-year prevalence of occupational MSDs from this study are comparable to previously reported estimates in chiropractors. These data suggest that chiropractors continue with their regular workload despite their MSDs, thereby increasing their chances of presenteeism. Chiropractors changing technique or technique parameters due to their MSDs provides direction for future research to reduce exposure to occupational MSD risk factors.

Abstract Background Patient safety research has lagged within academic settings, including chiropractic teaching institutions. To develop a robust patient safety culture, the Institute of Medicine emphasized the need for employee’s attitudes to be understanding and positive. To initiate the assessment of the current culture and future needs, this study evaluated patient safety attitudes among chiropractic teaching clinic stakeholders (supervising clinicians, student interns, and administrative staff) and compared their standardized survey scores to established medical survey databases. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey design with quantitative analytic priority. Chiropractic interns, clinical faculty, and clinic staff of 5 international chiropractic educational programs completed a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Culture for Medical Offices Survey with open-ended comment fields between 2014 and 2016. Composite means of positive responses were calculated and compared to patient safety, quality of care, and overall self-ratings benchmarks from Canadian providers and academic settings in the AHRQ database. Qualitative responses were thematically categorized for a convergent analysis of quantitative results for the chiropractic sample. Results Chiropractic survey response rate was 45.3% (n = 645). Quantitative survey results indicated moderate scores and ranges (57–85%) on all patient safety dimensions for the chiropractic samples. Academic medicine and chiropractic providers’ benchmarks scored higher positive responses than chiropractic teaching clinics on most quantitative dimensions, except for work pressure/pace. Teamwork, organizational learning, and patient tracking/follow-up were the most positively endorsed quantitative dimensions, with communication, staff training, office standardization, and leadership support considered areas for improvement in both settings. Qualitative responses for the chiropractic clinics identified a need for open communication; additional staff training and student involvement in creating safety cultures; standardization of office processes including information exchange, scheduling, and equipment maintenance; and leadership support that focused on decreasing work pressure/pace and setting safety priorities. Conclusion As the first report of patient safety attitudes from stakeholders in chiropractic teaching clinics, specific areas of improvement were identified. Chiropractic teaching programs might consider incorporating these and related patient safety concepts into their formal curricula. Mixed methods approach offers teaching clinics opportunities to assess stakeholders’ insights and enhance safe delivery of chiropractic care.

Abstract Background Approximately 50% of patients who receive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) experience some kind of adverse event (AE), typically benign and transient in nature. Regardless of their severity, mitigating benign AEs is important to improve patient experience and quality of care. The aim of this study was to identify beliefs, perceptions and practices of chiropractors and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and potential strategies to mitigate them. Methods Clinicians and patients from two chiropractic teaching clinics were invited to respond to an 11-question survey exploring their beliefs, perceptions and practices regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 39 clinicians (67% response rate) and 203 patients (82.9% response rate) completed the survey. Most clinicians (97%) believed benign AEs occur, and 82% reported their own patients have experienced one. For patients, 55% reported experiencing benign AEs post-SMT, with the most common symptoms being pain/soreness, headache and stiffness. While most clinicians (61.5%) reported trying a mitigation strategy with their patients, only 21.2% of patients perceived their clinicians had tried any mitigation strategy. Clinicians perceived that patient education is most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by soft tissue therapy and/or icing after SMT. Patients perceived stretching was most likely to mitigate benign AEs, followed by education and/or massage. Conclusions This is the first study comparing beliefs, perceptions and practices from clinicians and patients regarding benign AEs post-SMT and strategies to mitigate them. This study provides an important step towards identifying the best strategies to improve patient safety and improve quality of care.

Abstract Introduction When indicated by signs or symptoms of potentially serious underlying pathology (red flags), chiropractors can use radiographs to inform their diagnosis. In the absence of red flags, the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the structure and function of the spine is controversial. Objectives To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. Investigate whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. The research objectives required that we determine the validity, diagnostic accuracy and reliability of radiographs for the structural and functional evaluation of the spine. Evidence review We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to November 25, 2019. We used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, randomized controlled trials, diagnostic and reliability) were critically appraised. Studies of acceptable quality were included in our synthesis. The lead author extracted data and a second reviewer independently validated the data extraction. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of the evidence. Findings We identified 959 citations, screened 176 full text articles and critically appraised 23. No relevant studies assessed the clinical utility of routine or repeat radiographs (in the absence of red flags) of the cervical, thoracic or lumbar spine for the functional or structural evaluation of the spine. No studies investigated whether functional or structural findings on repeat radiographs are valid markers of clinically meaningful outcomes. Nine low risk of bias studies investigated the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 8) of routine or repeat radiographs. These studies provide no evidence of clinical utility. Conclusion We found no evidence that the use of routine or repeat radiographs to assess the function or structure of the spine, in the absence of red flags, improves clinical outcomes and benefits patients. Given the inherent risks of ionizing radiation, we recommend that chiropractors do not use radiographs for the routine and repeat evaluation of the structure and function of the spine.

Abstract Background In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. Main body We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. Conclusion In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

Abstract Introduction The safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children is controversial. We were mandated by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to review the evidence on this issue. Objectives We conducted a rapid review of the safety of SMT in children (

Abstract Background The literature supports the effectiveness of self-management support (SMS) to improve health outcomes of patients with chronic spine pain. However, patient engagement in SMS programs is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to: 1) assess participation in self-care (i.e. activation) among patients with spine pain, 2) identify patients’ barriers and enablers to using SMS, and 3) map behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to key barriers to inform the design of a knowledge translation (KT) intervention aimed to increase the use of SMS. Methods In summer 2016, we invited 250 patients with spine pain seeking care at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Ontario, Canada to complete the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) survey to assess the level of participation in self-care. We subsequently conducted individual interviews, in summer 2017, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) in a subset of patients to identify potential challenges to using SMS. The interview guide included 20 open-ended questions and accompanying probes. Findings were deductively analysed guided by the TDF. A panel of 7 experts mapped key barriers to BCTs, designed a KT intervention, and selected the modes of delivery. Results Two hundred and twenty-three patients completed the PAM. Approximately 24% of respondents were not actively involved in their care. Interview findings from 13 spine pain patients suggested that the potential barriers to using SMS corresponded to four TDF domains: Environmental Context and Resources; Emotion; Memory, Attention & Decision-Making; and Behavioural Regulation. The proposed theory-based KT intervention includes paper-based educational materials, webinars and videos, summarising and demonstrating the therapeutic recommendations including exercises and other lifestyle changes. In addition, the KT intervention includes Brief Action Planning, a SMS strategy based on motivational interviewing, along with a SMART plan and reminders. Conclusions Almost one quarter of study participants were not actively engaged in their spine care. Key barriers likely to influence uptake of SMS among patients were identified and used to inform the design of a theory-based KT intervention to increase their participation level. The proposed multi-component KT intervention may be an effective strategy to optimize the quality of spine pain care and improve patients’ health-outcomes.

Abstract Background Patient-centred care is internationally recognized as a foundation of quality patient care. Attitudes of students towards patient-centred care have been assessed in various health professions. However, little is known how chiropractic students’ attitudes towards patient-centred care compare to those of other health professions or whether they vary internationally, and between academic programs. Objective To assess the association of select variables on student attitude towards patient-centred care among select chiropractic programs worldwide. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) to assess students’ patient-centred attitudes towards the doctor-patient relationship. Eighteen items were scored on a 1 to 6 Likert scale; higher scores indicating more patient-centredness. All students from seven chiropractic educational programs worldwide were invited to complete an online survey. Results were analyzed descriptively and inferentially for overall, sharing and caring subscales. General linear regression models were used to assess the association of various factors with PPOS scores. Results There were 1858 respondents (48.9% response rate). Student average age was 24.7 (range = 17–58) years and 56.2% were female. The average overall PPOS score was 4.18 (SD = 0.48) and average sharing and caring subscale scores were 3.89 (SD = 0.64) and 4.48 (SD = 0.52), respectively. There were small but significant differences in all PPOS scores by gender, age, and program. Year/semester of study within a program typically was not associated with scores, neither was history of previous chiropractic care nor having family members who are health professionals. Conclusion This is the first international study assessing students’ attitudes of patient-centred care in chiropractic educational programs. We found small but significantly different PPOS scores between chiropractic programs worldwide that did not change across year/semester of study. Scores tended to be lower than those reported among medical students. Observed differences may be related to curricular content, extent of patient exposure and/or regional cultural realities.

Abstract Background Musculoskeletal injuries are one of the most prevalent battle and non-battle related injuries in the active duty military. In some countries, chiropractic services are accessed to manage such injuries within and outside military healthcare systems; however, there is no recent description of such access nor outcomes. This scoping review aimed to synthesize published literature exploring the nature, models, and outcomes of chiropractic services provided to active duty military globally. Method We employed scoping review methodology. Systematic searches of relevant databases, including military collections and hand searches were conducted from inception to October 22, 2018. We included peer-reviewed English literature with qualitative and quantitative designs, describing chiropractic practice and services delivered to active duty military worldwide. Paired reviewers independently reviewed all citations and articles using a two-phase screening process. Data from relevant articles were extracted into evidence tables and sorted by study type. Results were descriptively analyzed. Results We screened 497 articles and 20 met inclusion criteria. Chiropractic services were commonly provided on-base only in the US. Services were accessed by physician referral and commonly after initiation or non-response to other care. Use of scope of practice was determined by the system/facility, varying from intervention specific to comprehensive services. Back pain with and without radiculopathy accounted for most complaints. Treatment outcomes were reported primarily by case reports. However, two recent randomized trials reported improved pain, disability, and satisfaction when adding chiropractic care to usual medical care compared to usual medical care alone in management of low back pain. Specific reaction time measures in special operation forces military did not improve after chiropractic care compared to wait-list control. Conclusions Our scoping review found the majority of published articles described chiropractic services in the active duty military in the US setting. Recent RCTs suggest a benefit of including chiropractic care to usual medical care in managing back pain in active duty military. Yet despite reported benefits in Australia, Canada, and the US, there is a need for further qualitative, descriptive, and clinical trial data worldwide to inform the role of chiropractic services in active duty military.

Abstract Introduction The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for improving athletic performance in healthy athletes is unclear. Assessing the effect of SMT on other performance outcomes in asymptomatic populations may provide insight into the management of athletes where direct evidence may not be available. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on the effect of SMT on performance-related outcomes in asymptomatic adults. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from 1990 to March 23, 2018. Inclusion criteria was any study examining a performance-related outcome of SMT in asymptomatic adults. Methodological quality was assessed using the SIGN criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were considered scientifically admissible for a best evidence synthesis. We calculated the between group mean change and 95% confidence intervals. Results Of 1415 articles screened, 20 studies had low risk of bias, seven were randomized crossover trials, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and three were RCT pilot trials. Four studies showed SMT had no effect on physiological parameters at rest or during exercise. There was no effect of SMT on scapular kinematics or transversus abdominus thickness. Three studies identified changes in muscle activation of the upper or lower limb, compared to two that did not. Five studies showed changes in range of motion (ROM). One study showed an increase lumbar proprioception and two identified changes in baropodometric variables after SMT. Sport-specific studies show no effect of SMT except for a small increase in basketball free-throw accuracy. Conclusion The preponderance of evidence suggests that SMT in comparison to sham or other interventions does not enhance performance-based outcomes in asymptomatic adult population. All studies are exploratory with immediate effects. In the few studies suggesting a positive immediate effect, the importance of such change is uncertain. Further high-quality performance specific studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Abstract The World Health Organization (WHO), in its “Rehabilitation 2030 A Call for Action”, identified the need to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems to meet the growing demands of current and future populations. Greater access to rehabilitation services is required to secure the achievement of the United Nation’s third Sustainable Development Goal, “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”. To support this mandate, WHO issued a call for non-governmental organizations, associations and institutions to share their rehabilitation-related competency frameworks which will be used to construct a global rehabilitation competency framework. In response to this call, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) developed a chiropractic rehabilitation competency framework. In this article, we present the chiropractic rehabilitation competency framework that will contribute to the development of the global framework in support of WHO’s strategic planning for rehabilitation. The goal of WHO’s strategic planning is to improve the integration and support of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation and establishing opportunities for global networks and partnerships in rehabilitation.

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

Abstract Background Previous research has investigated utilization rates, who sees chiropractors, for what reasons, and the type of care that chiropractors provide. However, these studies have not been comprehensively synthesized. We aimed to give a global overview by summarizing the current literature on the utilization of chiropractic services, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and assessment and treatment provided. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature using keywords and subject headings (MeSH or ChiroSH terms) from database inception to January 2016. Eligible studies: 1) were published in English or French; 2) were case series, descriptive, cross-sectional, or cohort studies; 3) described patients receiving chiropractic services; and 4) reported on the following theme(s): utilization rates of chiropractic services; reasons for attending chiropractic care; profiles of chiropractic patients; or, types of chiropractic services provided. Paired reviewers independently screened all citations and data were extracted from eligible studies. We provided descriptive numerical analysis, e.g. identifying the median rate and interquartile range (e.g., chiropractic utilization rate) stratified by study population or condition. Results The literature search retrieved 14,149 articles; 328 studies (reported in 337 articles) were relevant and reported on chiropractic utilization (245 studies), reason for attending chiropractic care (85 studies), patient demographics (130 studies), and assessment and treatment provided (34 studies). Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015. Most patients consulting chiropractors were female (57.0%, IQR: 53.2%-60.0%) with a median age of 43.4 years (IQR: 39.6-48.0), and were employed (median: 77.3%, IQR: 70.3%-85.0%). The most common reported reasons for people attending chiropractic care were (median) low back pain (49.7%, IQR: 43.0%-60.2%), neck pain (22.5%, IQR: 16.3%-24.5%), and extremity problems (10.0%, IQR: 4.3%-22.0%). The most common treatment provided by chiropractors included (median) spinal manipulation (79.3%, IQR: 55.4%-91.3%), soft-tissue therapy (35.1%, IQR: 16.5%-52.0%), and formal patient education (31.3%, IQR: 22.6%-65.0%). Conclusions This comprehensive overview on the world-wide state of the chiropractic profession documented trends in the literature over the last four decades. The findings support the diverse nature of chiropractic practice, although common trends emerged.