ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
Contested role boundaries and professional title: Implications of the independent review of podiatric surgery in Australia.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. 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.
- Bibliometric Analysis: Insights Into the Podiatric Medicine Landscape of Diabetic Sensory Peripheral Neuropathy and Genomics.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Reconciling Differences Between Podiatric and Orthopaedic Surgeons in the United Kingdom: The Memorandum of Understanding and Its Implications for the Future of Podiatric Surgery.Journal of foot and ankle research · 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
Abstract
introductionIn October 2023, the Podiatry Board of Australia commissioned an independent review of the regulation of podiatric surgery in Australia, with a remit to re-evaluate the regulatory framework, identify any risks to patient safety and recommend improvements to public protection. It reported in March 2024 and set out 14 key recommendations. The review was prompted by a number of complaints about podiatric surgeons but also reflected calls for reform by the medical profession and several critical media reports. This paper sets out to examine the review report, alongside the concerns of the medical profession and the media articles expressed within it, through the lens of an established sociological framework focused on interprofessional conflict and the contested use of professional titles.
methodsAs a review rather than the research paper, the Independent Review of Podiatric Surgery (the 'Paterson Report') served as data for the sociological analysis, adopting a Neo-Weberian and Bordieuan framework to examine the strategies adopted by the medical profession and media reports cited in the report, consistent with the exercise of professional power.
resultsThe sociological analysis provides insights into the ways in which professions seek to maintain symbolic, social, cultural and economic privileges and rewards through the exclusion of competitors, using strategies such as social closure, symbolic violence, symbolic devaluation, gatekeeper roles, and jurisdictional disputes.
conclusionsThe review report acknowledges the influence of the medical profession and its opposition to the practice of podiatric surgery and use of the title 'podiatric surgeon'. The arguments made and strategies deployed are consistent with those found in the wider literature. In light of these findings, the implications for the future of podiatric surgery are considered in terms of professional practice, use of professional title, and access to public funding.
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.