Trial reportPloS one2022
A randomized, controlled study to assess if allopathic-osteopathic collaboration influences stereotypes, interprofessional readiness, and doctor-patient communication.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Interprofessional education among musculoskeletal healthcare professions: A scoping review.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the growing similarities between allopathic (MD) and osteopathic (DO) medical education, few studies have examined allopathic-osteopathic collaboration. The following study focused on stereotypes and student readiness for interprofessional learning. Patient perceptions were also evaluated. Osteopathic and allopathic students were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to work in pairs (MD/DO, MD/MD, DO/DO) at the start of each shift. A questionnaire evaluating student communication was collected from patients at the end of each encounter. Surveys assessing stereotypes and interprofessional readiness were obtained from students at the end of each workday. Data collection was stopped early due to Coronavirus-related safety measures. In the ITT analysis, there were a total of 126 participants (57 students 69 patients). A per-protocol analysis was performed to account for repeat clinic volunteers. No significant differences were detected between student pairs; however, the sensitivity analysis of the questionnaire assessing interprofessional readiness was 8 points higher in the DO/DO group compared to the MD/MD and MD/DO groups (P = 0.0503). In the content analysis of qualitative responses, the MD/DO group was more likely to respond with themes of enjoyment and less concern about stereotypes than the DO/DO group. The MD/DO group was also less likely to report concerns about differences in expectations, methods, and thinking than the MD/MD group. Early trends from this study suggest that DO students may be better positioned to engage in interprofessional learning than their MD counterparts. Additionally, the findings from our content analysis provide evidence that the collaborative experience improved feelings associated with professional legitimacy and credibility among DO students. Taken in aggregate, this study provides justification for a follow-up investigation, as well as a framework for how such studies could best be executed in the future.
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.