ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2024
Evaluation of chiropractic students' knowledge and attitudes following pain interventions: A randomized educational trial at 2 institutions.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploration of chiropractic students' motivation toward the incorporation of new evidence on chiropractic maintenance care: a mixed methods study.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine chiropractic students' attitudes regarding knowledge of pain neuroscience, chronic pain, and patient-centered care before and after educational interventions. Secondarily, this study aimed to compare measures of these skills between cohorts at different timepoints throughout training programs.
methodsUsing stratified randomization, 281 Year 3 chiropractic students at 2 institutions were allocated into 1 of 3 educational interventions and served as active-control comparison groups: pain neuroscience education, chronic pain education, or patient-centered care. Participants completed validated surveys regarding their experience with the education interventions immediately pre- and post-lecture and 12 weeks after completion. For further comparison, surveys were also completed by 160 Year 1 students and 118 Year 2 students at 1 of the institutions. Independent sample t tests and 1-way analysis of variance were used for data analysis.
resultsAll Year 3 lecture groups showed immediate improvements (pain neuroscience education: 3.99 + 3.09/100, p = .18 [95% CI: 10.10 to -1.77]; chronic pain education: 0.42 + 0.74/7, p = .02 [95% CI: 0.72 to 0.07]; patient-centered care: 0.25 + 0.12/6, p = .05 [95% CI: 0.12-0.51]), but these were not sustained at the 12-week follow-up (pain neuroscience education: -6.25 + 4.36/100, p = .15 [95% CI: 14.93 to -2.42]; chronic pain education: 0.33 + 0.16/7, p = .19 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.01]; patient-centered care: 0.13 + 0.13/6, p = .30 [95% CI: 0.41 to -0.13]). Compared to active controls, only the patient-centered care group showed an immediate statistically significant difference.
conclusionsWhile this study found that immediate improvement in targeted competencies is possible with focused interventions, they were not sustained long term.
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.