Cargando…

Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that psychological factors, attitudes and beliefs impact on the quality of chiropractic student clinical decisions. This association has not been studied among qualified chiropractors. Our objective was to investigate if personality, psychological factors and/or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Innes, Stanley I., Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte, Walker, Bruce F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30984368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-019-0236-0
_version_ 1783408337513086976
author Innes, Stanley I.
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
Walker, Bruce F.
author_facet Innes, Stanley I.
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
Walker, Bruce F.
author_sort Innes, Stanley I.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that psychological factors, attitudes and beliefs impact on the quality of chiropractic student clinical decisions. This association has not been studied among qualified chiropractors. Our objective was to investigate if personality, psychological factors and/or unorthodox beliefs among chiropractors are related to choices of management in specific clinical scenarios. METHOD: In February 2018, a subsample of chiropractors (N = 700) from a practitioner-based research network in Australia known as ACORN (N = 1680), were invited to respond to an on-line anonymous questionnaire. Questions included items relating to management of specific clinical scenarios, intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and the ‘Big-5’ personality score, adoption of a prescriptive technique system, self-rating of chiropractic abilities, and the level of importance of subluxation and chiropractic philosophy in the delivery of care. Descriptive analysis was to be reported and associations examined between i) personality and psychology factors, unorthodox beliefs and ii) scores obtained for management of specific clinical scenarios, numbers of interdisciplinary referrals, and guideline-based X-ray use. RESULTS: The number of respondents was 141 (20%) and 33 of their responses were largely incomplete resulting in a final response rate of 108 (15.4%). In addition, some questions were left unanswered. These related mainly to IU and Big-5 personality measurements. Some sample characteristics (age, number of patients per week, hours worked per week) were similar to the larger ACORN project sample. However, the low response rate indicated that the final study sample was unlikely to be truly representative of the study population and the low number of participants made association testing unsuitable. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The low response rate and small study sample in this study made any substantive analysis inappropriate. For these reasons, the study was not concluded. However, the potential reasons for the low response from this large database of volunteer research participants are of interest and need to be investigated. Clearly, it is necessary to engage this population better to explore sensitive issues such as personality inventories and different practice profiles in the interest of effective health care delivery and patient safety. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0236-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6446310
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64463102019-04-12 Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study Innes, Stanley I. Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte Walker, Bruce F. Chiropr Man Therap Research BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that psychological factors, attitudes and beliefs impact on the quality of chiropractic student clinical decisions. This association has not been studied among qualified chiropractors. Our objective was to investigate if personality, psychological factors and/or unorthodox beliefs among chiropractors are related to choices of management in specific clinical scenarios. METHOD: In February 2018, a subsample of chiropractors (N = 700) from a practitioner-based research network in Australia known as ACORN (N = 1680), were invited to respond to an on-line anonymous questionnaire. Questions included items relating to management of specific clinical scenarios, intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and the ‘Big-5’ personality score, adoption of a prescriptive technique system, self-rating of chiropractic abilities, and the level of importance of subluxation and chiropractic philosophy in the delivery of care. Descriptive analysis was to be reported and associations examined between i) personality and psychology factors, unorthodox beliefs and ii) scores obtained for management of specific clinical scenarios, numbers of interdisciplinary referrals, and guideline-based X-ray use. RESULTS: The number of respondents was 141 (20%) and 33 of their responses were largely incomplete resulting in a final response rate of 108 (15.4%). In addition, some questions were left unanswered. These related mainly to IU and Big-5 personality measurements. Some sample characteristics (age, number of patients per week, hours worked per week) were similar to the larger ACORN project sample. However, the low response rate indicated that the final study sample was unlikely to be truly representative of the study population and the low number of participants made association testing unsuitable. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The low response rate and small study sample in this study made any substantive analysis inappropriate. For these reasons, the study was not concluded. However, the potential reasons for the low response from this large database of volunteer research participants are of interest and need to be investigated. Clearly, it is necessary to engage this population better to explore sensitive issues such as personality inventories and different practice profiles in the interest of effective health care delivery and patient safety. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0236-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6446310/ /pubmed/30984368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-019-0236-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Innes, Stanley I.
Leboeuf-Yde, Charlotte
Walker, Bruce F.
Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title_full Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title_fullStr Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title_full_unstemmed Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title_short Attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
title_sort attempting to explore chiropractors and their clinical choices: an examination of a failed study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30984368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-019-0236-0
work_keys_str_mv AT innesstanleyi attemptingtoexplorechiropractorsandtheirclinicalchoicesanexaminationofafailedstudy
AT leboeufydecharlotte attemptingtoexplorechiropractorsandtheirclinicalchoicesanexaminationofafailedstudy
AT walkerbrucef attemptingtoexplorechiropractorsandtheirclinicalchoicesanexaminationofafailedstudy