ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2016
An indication of current views of Australian general practitioners towards chiropractic and osteopathy: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Attitudes and perceptions of health care professionals concerning chiropractors and chiropractic practice: a systematic review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Pooled it
- Management of progressive joint disorders by non-physician healthcare providers in South Africa: A mapping study to inform pharmacist integration.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
- Osteopathy Referrals to and from General Practitioners: Secondary Analysis of Practitioner Characteristics from an Australian Practice-Based Research Network.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Factors that influence scope of practice of the chiropractic profession in Australia: a scoping review.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Article
- Prevalence of Chiropractic-Specific Terminology on Chiropractors' Websites in the United Kingdom With Comparison to Australia: An Analysis of Samples.Journal of chiropractic humanities · 2021Article
- Service utilisation trends in the manual therapy professions within the Australian private healthcare setting between 2008 and 2017.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2020Article
- An investigation of Australian osteopaths' attitudes, skills and utilisation of evidence-based practice: a national cross-sectional survey.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with the use of primary headache diagnostic criteria by chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Article
- The management of common recurrent headaches by chiropractors: a descriptive analysis of a nationally representative survey.BMC neurology · 2018Article
- The schism in chiropractic through the eyes of a 1st year chiropractic student.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2018Review
- Themes Underlying Australian General Practitioner Views towards Chiropractic and Osteopathy: An Assessment of Free Text Data from a Cross-Sectional Survey.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsThere 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 %).
conclusionsThis 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.'
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.