Characteristics, Opportunities, and Challenges of Osteopathy Based on the Perceptions of Osteopaths in Austria: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no uniform regulations for the osteopathic profession in Europe. It is subject to country-specific regulations defining who shall be allowed to practice osteopathy and which qualification shall be required. In recent years, legal regulations have been established in several European countries for the profession of osteopathy; however, these are also still pending for Austria. Currently, physiotherapists and physicians with osteopathic training are practicing osteopathy in Austria. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics, challenges, and opportunities of osteopaths in Austria. METHODS: Guideline-based interviews with osteopaths (N=10) were conducted. The different research questions were examined using a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The study provided a differentiated insight into the professional situation of osteopaths in Austria. The most important result was that all interviewees unanimously supported a legal regulation of their profession. However, owing to their different professional self-image-on the one hand, individuals working on a structural basis, and, on the other hand, individuals working on a cranial or biodynamic basis-they were able to imagine a uniform professional regulation only to a limited extent. Additional topics for the interviewed osteopaths in Austria were the quality assurance of training and the urgent need for scientific research. Furthermore, the study also dealt with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily practice and on education and training in osteopathy. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a pioneering study with regard to systematic basic research on osteopathy in Austria. The obtained results and the newly acquired research questions not only have the potential to serve as a basis for further studies but also provide insight into the working and professional situation of osteopaths in Austria for universities, schools, professional associations, politics, and-last but not least-all interested parties. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/15399.

Prevalence of Body Area Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.

Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body areas in relation to healthcare professions. The underlying question is, worldwide, whether there are areas that are more exposed depending on the occupation or whether there are common areas that are highly exposed to MSDs. This issue has been extended to risk factors and responses to reduce MSDs. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2022. Google scholar and Science Direct databases were scanned to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed, critically appraised, and extracted data from these studies. Overall and body area prevalence, risk factors, and responses to MSDs were synthetized by occupational activity. Among the 21,766 records identified, 36 covering six healthcare professions were included. The lower back, neck, shoulder and hand/wrist were the most exposed areas for all healthcare professionals. Surgeons and dentists presented the highest prevalence of lower back (>60%), shoulder and upper extremity (35-55%) MSDs. The highest prevalence of MSDs in the lower limbs was found for nurses (>25%). The main causes reported for all healthcare professionals were maintenance and repetition of awkward postures, and the main responses were to modify these postures. Trends by continent seem to emerge regarding the prevalence of MSDs by healthcare profession. Africa and Europe showed prevalence three times higher than Asia and America for lower back MSDs among physiotherapists. African and Asian nurses presented rates three times higher for elbow MSDs than Oceanians. It becomes necessary to objectively evaluate postures and their level of risk using ergonomic tools, as well as to adapt the work environment to reduce exposure to MSDs with regard to the specificities of each profession.

Complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists: a retrospective cohort study of health, performance, and conduct concerns.

Background: Recent media reports have highlighted the risks to patients that may occur when practitioners in the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions provide services in an unethical or unsafe manner. Yet research on complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists is limited. Our aim was to understand differences in the frequency and nature of formal complaints about practitioners in these professions in order to inform improvements in professional regulation and education. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analysed all formal complaints about all registered chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists in Australia lodged with health regulators between 2011 and 2016. Based on initial assessments by regulators, complaints were classified into 11 complaint issues across three domains: performance, professional conduct, and health. Differences in complaint rate were assessed using incidence rate ratios. A multivariate negative binomial regression model was used to identify predictors of complaints among practitioners in these professions. Results: Patients and their relatives were the most common source of complaints about chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Concerns about professional conduct accounted for more than half of the complaints about practitioners in these three professions. Regulatory outcome of complaints differed by profession. Male practitioners, those who were older than 65 years, and those who practised in metropolitan areas were at higher risk of complaint. The overall rate of complaints was higher for chiropractors than osteopaths and physiotherapists (29 vs. 10 vs. 5 complaints per 1000 practice years respectively, p < 0.001). Among chiropractors, 1% of practitioners received more than one complaint - they accounted for 36% of the complaints within their profession. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates differences in the frequency of complaints by source, issue and outcome across the chiropractic, osteopathic and physiotherapy professions. Independent of profession, male sex and older age were significant risk factors for complaint in these professions. Chiropractors were at higher risk of being the subject of a complaint to their practitioner board compared with osteopaths and physiotherapists. These findings may assist regulatory boards, professional associations and universities in developing programs that avert patient dissatisfaction and harm and reduce the burden of complaints on practitioners.

Enablers and barriers to the development of interprofessional collaboration between physicians and osteopaths: A mixed methods study.

Osteopathy is a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is growing in popularity. Increasing numbers of parents are seeking pediatric osteopathic care in addition to conventional medical care. Information about the development of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between these practitioners is scarce. This explanatory sequential mixed methods study aimed to explore enablers of and barriers to the development of IPC between physicians and osteopaths involved with pediatric patients in primary care in Quebec, Canada. Postal questionnaires about collaborative practices were first sent to all physicians and osteopaths working with pediatric patients in Quebec. Semi-structured individual interviews were then conducted with a subset of 10 physicians and 11 osteopaths. A total of 274 physicians (14%) and 297 osteopaths (42%) completed the survey. Forty-five percent (n = 122) of physicians reported that they referred at least one pediatric patient per month to an osteopath. Thirty-six percent (n = 96) of physicians and 41% (n = 122) of osteopaths indicated having professional relationships. Personal consultation, professional relationship, perceived utility of osteopathy and community practice were positively associated with osteopathic referrals. According to participants, the strongest enabler of the development of collaboration was positive clinical results reported by parents. Additional enablers included the osteopath having previous health professionals training such as physiotherapist, pediatric experience, mutual respect for professional boundaries and complementarity, perceived safety of osteopathy, and parents' requests for collaboration. Barriers were the absence of a common language, the organizational and legal context, uncertainty regarding one another's roles, lack of interprofessional interactions, and limited scientific evidence. These results related to enablers of and barriers to collaboration between physicians and osteopaths and the illustration of their dynamic interaction could be used to guide efforts to promote productive collaboration and safe patient-oriented care.