ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2026
Evaluating the need to revise chiropractic education standards in the United Kingdom: Adapting to progress.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Health regulators in the United Kingdom fulfill their statutory duty to maintain high standards of education and training of health professionals by setting standards for education. Ensuring standards are contemporary and fit for purpose is fundamental to this function. This research aimed to evaluate whether the Education Standards (ES) of the General Chiropractic Council (2017) remained fit for purpose in 2021 or whether revisions were needed to meet current and future competency requirements for chiropractic graduates. Methods: An exploratory, qualitative methodology was followed. The ES were comparatively mapped to relevant standards, authoritative practice, and quality assurance frameworks from other health care and higher education regulators, professional and chartered bodies. Areas of difference from other standards and frameworks were identified and substantive differences described. Results: Twenty-two global and national frameworks and standards were mapped. Health care disciplines included physiotherapy, medicine, and osteopathy. Subjects included musculoskeletal capabilities, rehabilitation, safety curricula, person-centered approaches, dementia training, research competencies, and education. Twenty substantive areas not captured in the ES or requiring strengthening were identified. These included person-centered approaches, safety and quality, rehabilitation, prevention and health promotion, psychologically informed approaches, interprofessional practice, collaborative care, integration of evidence into practice, digital readiness, and reflective practice. Substantive areas linked to program delivery included protecting the interests of patients in an education setting, clinical learning (including interprofessional), and the culture of research and evidence. Conclusion: Although broadly fit for purpose, mapping indicated the ES were falling out of step with the evolving wider health care community, supporting recommendations for high level revisions.
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.