ArticlePloS one2025
Barriers to osteopathic manipulative medicine use: A qualitative study of physician attitudes and experiences.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- A hands-on approach to personalizing palliative care: the role of osteopathic manipulative treatment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Gatekeepers in primary care - a qualitative study on manual therapists' role in triaging patients with back and neck pain.BMC health services 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite growing recognition of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) as an effective treatment for chronic pain, little is known about the real-world barriers clinicians face when attempting to integrate OMM into their clinical practice. Fewer than half of practicing Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) incorporate OMM into patient care. Understanding the barriers that hinder OMM use is critical to bridging this gap and expanding access to this evidence-based treatment.
methodsA survey was distributed to DOs from Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Health System, inviting volunteers for semi-structured interviews about their attitudes and experiences with OMM. The interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. A thematic map was developed through investigator triangulation to connect key themes and subthemes.
resultsAmong 27 survey respondents who volunteered, 16 completed in-depth interviews, representing diverse clinical roles and experiences. Analysis identified six overarching themes: system, capability, utility, training, attitudes and beliefs, and resources. These themes were supported by direct quotes and linked through subthemes that illustrated nuanced barriers and facilitators influencing OMM integration.
conclusionsThis study provides important qualitative insights into how DOs perceive the systemic, practical, and perceptual barriers that hinder implementation of OMM into clinical practice. Time constraints, scheduling complexity, and limited patient awareness emerged as significant barriers, compounded by broader systemic issues such as patient panel management and practice autonomy. Addressing these barriers through intentional support from institutional leadership could improve access to this valuable treatment.
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.