Explore the vast range of titles available.

Growing physician maldistribution and population demographic shifts have contributed to large geographic variation in healthcare access and the emergence of advanced practice providers as contributors to the healthcare workforce. Current estimates of geographic accessibility of physicians and advanced practice providers rely on outdated \"provider per capita\" estimates that have shortcomings. To apply state of the art methods to estimate spatial accessibility of physician and non-physician clinician groups and to examine factors associated with higher accessibility. We used a combination of provider location, medical claims, and U.S. Census data to perform a national study of health provider accessibility. The National Plan and Provider Enumeration System was used along with Medicare claims to identify providers actively caring for patients in 2014 including: primary care physicians (i.e., internal medicine and family medicine), specialists, nurse practitioners, and chiropractors. For each U.S. ZIP code tabulation area, we estimated provider accessibility using the Variable-distance Enhanced 2 step Floating Catchment Area method and performed a Getis-Ord Gi* analysis for each provider group. Generalized linear models were used to examine associations between population characteristics and provider accessibility. National spatial patterns of the provider groups differed considerably. Accessibility of internal medicine most resembled specialists with high accessibility in urban locales, whereas relative higher accessibility of family medicine physicians was concentrated in the upper Midwest. In our adjusted analyses independent factors associated with higher accessibility were very similar between internal medicine physicians and specialists-presence of a medical school in the county was associated with approximately 70% higher accessibility and higher accessibility was associated with urban locales. Nurse practitioners were similar to family medicine physicians with both having higher accessibility in rural locales. The Variable-distance Enhanced 2 step Floating Catchment Area method is a viable approach to measure spatial accessibility at the national scale.

This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017. Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T 0 ] and 2–7 days post-treatment [T 2 ]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T 1 ]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious. From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T 0 and T 1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care. From the patients visits with a complete T 2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which: 7.9% were mild, 6.2% moderate, 3.7% severe, 1.5% serious, and 2.0% had missing severity rating. The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were discomfort/pain, stiffness, difficulty walking and headache. This study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.

Although student loans have made health professional education accessible for a greater proportion of the US population, rising student indebtedness has incited considerable discourse. This study aimed to characterize US chiropractors' self-reported student loan debt, student loan relief opportunities, and perceived value of chiropractic training. A 38-item cross-sectional, anonymous, electronic survey was developed. Chiropractors who graduated from a US-based, Council on Chiropractic Education-accredited Doctor of Chiropractic program (DCP) were recruited. The survey was conducted between February 2025 to March 2025. Survey domains included (1) demographics, (2) financial characteristics, (3) loan relief, and (4) educational and career value. Descriptive statistics and visualizations were used for analysis. A total of 1,455 responses were collected. The mean (SD) and median (Q1-Q3) student loan debt at graduation was $176,297 ($89,460) and $185,000 ($120,000-$240,000). At survey completion, 85% retained student loan debt, averaging $232,062 ($102,691) with a median of $240,000 ($177,500-$290,000). Mean (SD) gross income in 2023 was $99,068 ($100,349); median (Q1-Q3) was $76,000 ($50,000-$115,000). Approximately 87% of respondents reported being ineligible or unsure about eligibility for loan relief programs. Over half (53.3%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that their DCP provided a positive return on investment (ROI), and approximately 70% rated the financial ROI of DCP training as low or very low. Perceptions of non-financial ROI were more favorable. Overall, 65% would not choose a chiropractic career again; among them, 67.3% would pursue a career in another healthcare field. US chiropractors are burdened with considerable student loan debt that outpaces gross income. The findings of this study are commensurate with prior studies investigating chiropractic educational debt, yet likely are not unique to the profession and represent larger challenges faced by many modern US health professions. Innovation is likely needed to support the sustainability of the chiropractic profession given tension between educational debt and income.

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.

Background Neck pain (NP) is a very common musculoskeletal condition with potential for a high burden in disability and length of disorder. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) give recommendations to clinicians for providing optimal care for patients however best practice recommendations are often contradictory. The purpose for this review was to conduct a SR of CPGs to assess the management recommendations for NP (diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, imaging). Methods Standard SR methodology was employed including a grey literature search (including the National Guideline Clearing House). Medline, Cinahl, Embase, ILC, Cochrane, Central, and Lilacs were searched from 1995-to March 2018. Two raters evaluated all citations and a third rater resolved any disagreements. The AGREE II was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG. Data was extracted and included CPG purpose, type of NP problem and clinical recommendations. The AGREE II critical appraisal tool was used to assess risk of bias of each CPG. Results From 640 articles, 241 were available for screening. A total of 46 guidelines were selected. CPG’s were categorized by the NP population (General NP, whiplash, interventional, headache and risk for vertebral insufficiency) and type of clinical aim (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, imaging). Each clinical NP population had a large overlap of clinical aims presented. The CPGs were directed to a variety of clinicians that included physicians, physiotherapists and chiropractors. Results suggest heterogeneity in CPG recommendations within each clinical aim. CPG characteristics accounting for these differences are outlined. Conclusion The majority of CPGs were developed for general NP that focused on treatment recommendations, with fewer number aimed at recommendations for diagnosis, prognosis, and outcomes. Heterogeneity of recommendations within the categories were noted as were potential factors associated with these differences, including CPG quality as assessed by the AGREE II.

Background. Chiropractors and homeopaths are trusted sources of health information for many Canadians, including around vaccination. However, within Ontario, Canada, the College of Chiropractors of Ontario and the College of Homeopaths of Ontario regulations state that vaccines are not within their scope of practice and providers should not express views, treat, or advise patients with respect to vaccination. The aims of the present study were to: (1) describe the attitudes and beliefs regarding vaccination held among participating chiropractors and homeopaths; (2) identify the sources of information about vaccination they trust and use to guide their personal vaccination decisions; and (3) describe how they navigate patient requests for guidance on vaccine decision-making within the current regulatory landscape. Methods. Semi-structured interviews ( N  = 16) were conducted between February 2020-March 2021 and explored participants’ opinions on vaccination, sources of information they trust and recommend to their patients, and how they navigate vaccine conversations with patients. Results. Providers’ personal beliefs regarding vaccination were described as reinforced by social and professional networks, through their personal experiences, and in consultation with clients. Various strategies were used to support patients while abiding by regulations (e.g. referring patients to providers for whom vaccination is within their scope of practice); however, other strategies described (e.g., stating personal beliefs) could be interpreted as a breach of regulation. Conclusions. This research reinforces existing literature suggesting that patients using chiropractors and homeopaths have questions about vaccination and are looking for trusted information. Public health services should consider engaging with chiropractors and homeopaths to facilitate communication between patients and immunization providers.

To model future use of chiropractic services and predict clinical resource needs within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) over the next 5 years. A serial cross-sectional analysis of chiropractic use data from VA's Corporate Data Warehouse for fiscal years (FY) 2017 through 2022 (10/1/2016-9/30/2022). We calculated the proportion of VA chiropractic users-via care provided on-station and/or purchased from Community Care Network (CCN) providers-compared to overall VA healthcare users for each FY. We calculated the historical year-over-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which was used to predict use in FY2023 through 2027 (10/1/2022-9/30/2027). VA's chiropractic use rate increased from 1.4% in FY2017 to 3.5% in FY2022, at which point 2.0% of VA users received only CCN chiropractic care, 1.3% only on-station, and 0.2% both. During the 6-year observation period, the CAGRs were overall 17.9%, CCN only 23.8%, on-station only 12.4%, and both 27.7%. Using those rates to extrapolate, by the end of FY2027 overall use will be 8.9%, with 5.9% only CCN, 2.3% only on-station, and 0.6% both. Overall use of VA chiropractic services is projected to more than double from FY 2022 to FY2027. These findings underscore the need for proactive resource planning to address the expected increased use of both CCN and on-station care.

Objective: To investigate the most common physical examination tests (PET) for the screening for referral of patients with back or chest pain caused by serious pathology. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Searches were performed on seven electronic databases between June 2020 and December 2021. Only studies evaluating patients with back and/or chest pain with clear reporting of PETs and prompt patient referrals were included. Results: 316 full texts were included, and these studies had a total of 474/492 patients affected by a serious disease. Only 26 studies of them described suspicion of serious disease due to at least one positive PET. Cardiac/pulmonary auscultation and heartbeats/blood pressure measurements were the most frequently reported tests. None of the reported studies included physiotherapists and chiropractors who reported the use of various tests, such as: cardiac and pulmonary auscultation, lung percussion, costovertebral angle tenderness, and lymph node palpation, highlighting a lack of attention in measuring vital parameters. On the contrary, doctors and nurses reported the assessment of the range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine and hip less frequently. Conclusions: Appropriate reporting of PETs is sparse, and their utilization is heterogeneous among different healthcare professionals. Further primary studies are needed to describe PETs results in patients suffering from back and/or chest pain.

Background Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs) can assess and manage musculoskeletal conditions with similar manual or physical therapy techniques. This overlap in scope of practice raises questions about the boundaries between the three professions. Clinical settings where they are co-located are one of several possible influences on professional boundaries and may provide insight into the nature of these boundaries and how they are managed by clinicians themselves. Objectives To understand the nature of professional boundaries between COPs within a co-located clinical environment and describe the ways in which professional boundaries may be reinforced, weakened, or navigated in this environment. Methods Drawing from an interpretivist paradigm, we used ethnographic observations to observe interactions between 15 COPs across two clinics. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis principles. Results We identified various physical and non-physical ‘boundary objects’ that influenced the nature of the professional boundaries between the COPs that participated in the study. These boundary objects overall seemed to increase the fluidity of the professional boundaries, at times simultaneously reinforcing and weakening them. The boundary objects were categorised into three themes: physical, including the clinic’s floor plan, large and small objects; social, including identities and discourse; and organisational, including appointment durations and fees, remuneration policies and insurance benefits. Conclusions Physical, social, organisational related factors made the nature of professional boundaries between COPs in these settings fluid; meaning that they were largely not rigid or fixed but rather flexible, responsive and subject to change. These findings may challenge patients, clinicians and administrators to appreciate that traditional beliefs of distinct boundaries between COPs may not be so in co-located clinical environments. Both clinical practice and future research on professional boundaries between COPs may need to further consider some of these broader factors.

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.