Who are the chiropractic students favouring a limitless scope of practice? Exploring the relationship with personality, magical thinking, and academic achievement.

INTRODUCTION: Some chiropractors seem to have an inflated belief in the powers of spinal manipulation (SMT), for example aiming at preventing future spinal degeneration and health problems, activities that are without supporting evidence. Non-evidenced health beliefs have been shown to be associated with a tendency toward magical thinking. Holding such beliefs about SMT is associated with a limitless scope of practice (LLSoP). Recent studies have shown that "chiropractic conservatism" (ChiroCon) is also associated with such approaches. We wanted to understand ChiroCon and these attitudes toward SMT by exploring three different factors: intolerance to uncertainty, academic achievement, and tendency toward magical thinking and how they relate to ChiroCon and LLSoP. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey of 243 chiropractic students from an Australian chiropractic program was conducted in May 2020. Students answered a questionnaire involving a patient case-scenario for LLSoP, levels of ChiroCon, validated questionnaires on (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. LLSoP was defined as wanting to treat with SMT a 5-year-old asymptomatic child for future (i) Musculoskeletal (MSK) problems and/or (ii) Non-musculoskeletal diseases. Logistic regression models were used to confirm if there was an association between ChiroCon and LLSoP and to explore associations between LLSoP and (i) Intolerance of uncertainty, (ii) Academic achievement, and (iii) Magical thinking. We repeated the same analyses using ChiroCon as the outcome variable. RESULTS: We confirmed that chiropractic students in the more extreme ChiroCon group were more likely to want to prevent future spinal disorders in an asymptomatic 5-year-old child as compared to those with lower levels (OR = 3.9, (95%CI 1.97-7.72). This was also the case for the prevention of future diseases in the same child (OR = 6.9, (95%CI 3.11-15.06). Of the three predictor variables, magical belief was positively associated with both ChiroCon and LLSoP. CONCLUSION: Not surprisingly, ChiroCon is closely related to LLSoP and both were linked to magical thinking. Therefore, the questionnaire 'Magical Health Beliefs' could be a useful instrument to screen future chiropractic students to prevent a mismatch between student and institution. Depending on the outlook of the school, some schools would welcome these students, whereas other institutions would want to avoid them in their education program.

Chiropractic website claims related to non-musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors frequently use spinal manipulation therapy as a treatment modality in the management of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions such as spinal pain and sometimes in the treatment of non-MSK disorders. The latter is not supported by evidence. This study aimed to investigate the extent of non-MSK website claims from French chiropractors to assess if websites were aligned with current recommendations on evidence-based practice. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of French chiropractors. Information on non-MSK conditions was collected from chiropractic professional websites by two independent observers in June 2020. For each non-MSK condition, it was noted whether a clarifying explanation justifying the mentioning of the condition was available. In addition, data on professional association affiliation status, country of education, years since graduation, and special clinical focus (e.g., seniors, children) were collected. RESULTS: A total of 287 randomly selected websites were included in the study corresponding to 22% of all chiropractors registered in France. One or more of 42 different non-MSK conditions were identified on 231 websites, of which 5 (2.2%) provided a clarifying explanation. 226 (79%) websites mentioned a non-MSK condition without a clarifying explanation. The non-MSK conditions most often mentioned were sleep problems, constipation/digestive problems, unease/discontent in children and menstrual cramps/pains. A larger proportion of the websites advertising treatment for non-MSK disorders was found among those claiming a special clinical focus on infants/children, seniors, pregnant women or athletes compared to those that did not. Also, a larger proportion of chiropractors who were affiliated with a professional association were advertising treatment for non-MSK disorders compared to those who were not affiliated. CONCLUSIONS: Eight out of ten chiropractic websites mentioned one or more non-MSK diagnoses or symptoms. It is unclear if this reflects inaccurate communication or if treatments for non-MSK conditions are provided by the chiropractors.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Chiropractic conservatism among chiropractic students in Denmark: prevalence and consequences.

BACKGROUND: The chiropractic profession is split between those practicing evidence-based and those whose practice is honed by vitalism. The latter has been coined 'chiropractic conservatism'. In Denmark, the chiropractic education program is university-based in close collaboration with a medical faculty. We wanted to investigate if such conservative attitudes were present in this environment. Our objectives were to i) determine the level of chiropractic conservatism, ii) investigate if this was linked to academic year of study, iii) determine the level of clinical appropriateness, and iv) to investigate if this was affected by the level of conservatism among students in a chiropractic program, where the students are taught alongside medical students at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 146 (response-rate 76%) 3rd to 5th year pre-graduate students and 1st year postgraduate clinical interns from the chiropractic degree course at the University of Southern Denmark was conducted during autumn of 2019. The students' levels of conservatism were dichotomized into appropriate/inappropriate, summed up, and used in a linear regression model to determine the association with academic year of study. Thereafter, the conservatism score was categorized into four groups (from low -1- to high -4-). Conservatism groups were cross-tabulated with the ability to answer appropriately on nine cases concerning i) contra-indications, ii) non-indications, and iii) indications for spinal manipulation and analyzed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Generally, the Danish chiropractic students had low conservatism scores, decreasing with increasing academic year of study. Seventy percent of the students were placed in the two lowest conservative groups. The level of conservatism (categories 1-3) was moderately (but not statistically significantly) associated with an inability to recognize non-indications to treatment. Three outliers (category 4), however, revealed a highly inappropriate handling of the clinical cases. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic students enrolled at a university-based course closely integrated with a medical teaching environment are not immune to chiropractic conservatism. However, the course appears to attenuate it and limit its effect on clinical decision-making compared to other educational institutions.

Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

Attitudes to functional neurology and some other 'prescriptive' chiropractic techniques and their associations with chiropractic conservatism: a cross-sectional survey of chiropractic students.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic technique systems ('prescriptive' techniques) might be interpreted as helpful guidelines. However, 'prescriptive' techniques, such as Functional Neurology (FN), Sacro-Occipital Technique, and Applied Kinesiology are more concerned with the 'technical' diagnosis than the condition and its symptoms and, thus, seem to provide easy solutions. DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: In a voluntary anonymous questionnaire survey carried out late 2017, we explored interest in 'prescriptive' techniques, particularly FN, among French chiropractic students in grades 3-6, and the possible link with chiropractic conservatism. We investigated their: i) attitudes to the use of 'prescriptive' techniques, ii) awareness of FN, and iii) attitudes to FN. Further, if their attitudes to some conservative chiropractic concepts influenced their clinical approach on iv) some 'prescriptive' chiropractic techniques and v) attitudes to FN. METHOD: Data reported in tables illustrated the prevalence of the use of 'prescriptive' techniques, awareness of FN, and positive attitude to FN (i.e. interest in and acceptance of). Students were given a FN score based on five questions on their interest in and acceptance of FN (0 to 5), dichotomized into two groups: 'not positive attitude' (0 to 1) and 'positive attitude' (2 to 5). Chiropractic conservatism was graded from 1 to 4. Associations were tested between conservatism groups and i) interest in 'prescriptive' techniques and ii) FN attitudes groups. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (N = 359), of which 90% were positive toward 'prescriptive' techniques. Only 10% had never heard about FN and in the 6th year all had heard about it. Only a minority, unrelated to the year of study, approved of the two examples given of FN concepts. Nevertheless, a majority were positive towards FN, more so in the higher grades. Students with the most conservative beliefs were 17 times more likely to want to use 'prescriptive' techniques and 11 times more likely to have a higher FN score. CONCLUSION: Although not taught in the curriculum, these students were attracted to 'prescriptive' techniques including FN, particularly in the higher grades. Curiously, despite this interest they do not generally agree with some key concepts within FN.

Chiropractic conservatism and the ability to determine contra-indications, non-indications, and indications to chiropractic care: a cross-sectional survey of chiropractic students.

Background: While there is a broad spectrum of practice within chiropractic two sub-types can be identified, those who focus on musculoskeletal problems and those who treat also non-musculoskeletal problems. The latter group may adhere to the old conservative 'subluxation' model. The main goal of this study is to determine if chiropractic students with such conservative opinions are likely to have a different approach to determine contra-indications, non-indications and indications to chiropractic treatment versus those without such opinions. Method: An anonymous and voluntary survey on 3rd to 6th year French chiropractic students was conducted between November 2017 and January 2018. Level of chiropractic conservatism (10 items) and the ability to determine contra-indications (2 cases), non-indications (4 cases) and indications (3 cases) were evaluated through a questionnaire. Answers to these cases were dichotomized into 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' answers, as defined by previous research teams and the present team. The level of conservatism was classified into four groups, 'group 4' corresponding to the highest score. Descriptive data are provided, and bi- and multivariate analyses were performed through logistic regression to test the associations between the level of conservatism and the ability to determine the suitability of chiropractic treatment. Results: In all, 359 of 536 (67%) students responded to the questionnaire. They generally recognized a number of contra-indications and indications to treatment. However, they found it more difficult to identify non-indications. The more conservative students were more likely to intend to treat their patients, even if this was irrelevant (non-indications). For example, those who were most conservative (group 4) were much more willing than those in group 1 to treat 'chiropractically' a 5-year-old child with no history of back pain or disease to prevent future back pain (OR = 14.7) and also to prevent non-musculoskeletal disease (OR = 22). Conclusion: It is concerning that students who adhere to the subluxation model are prepared to 'operationalize' their conservative opinions in their future scope of practice; apparently willing to treat asymptomatic people with chiropractic adjustments. The determinants of this phenomenon need to be understood.

Introduction: S'il existe de nombreuses approches chiropratiques, deux types de chiropracteurs peuvent-être identifiés; ceux s'intéressant aux troubles musculo-squelettiques et ceux souhaitant prendre en charge aussi des troubles non musculo-squelettiques. Il est possible que ces derniers adhèrent au modèle conservateur de la subluxation. Le principal objectif de cette étude est de déterminer si les étudiants en chiropraxie ayant ce type d'opinions conservatrices ont une approche différente pour déterminer les contre-indications, non-indications, et indications au traitement chiropratique, comparés à ceux n'ayant pas ce type d'opinions. Méthode: Une enquête anonyme et volontaire sur les étudiants en chiropraxie de 3ème, 4ème, 5ème, et 6ème années à l'Institut Franco Européen de Chiropraxie a été effectuée entre les mois de novembre 2017 et janvier 2018. Le niveau de conservatisme (10 items) et la capacité à déterminer les contre-indications (2 cas cliniques), les non-indications (4 cas cliniques) et les indications (3 cas cliniques) ont été évalués. Les réponses à ces cas cliniques ont été dichotomisées en réponses « appropriées ¼ et « non appropriées ¼, comme il avait été défini par les précédentes et l'actuelle équipe de recherche. Le niveau de conservatisme a été classé en quatre groupes, le score le plus élevé étant celui du groupe « 4 ¼. Les données descriptives ont été rapportées, des analyses bi- et multivariées ont été effectuées à travers des régressions logistiques. Le but étant d'évaluer s'il existe des associations entre le niveau de conservatisme et la capacité d'avoir une décision de prise en charge adaptée. Résultats: 359 sur 536 étudiants (67%) ont répondu au questionnaire. Ils reconnaissent correctement quelques cas de contre-indications et d'indications au traitement chiropratique. Cependant, il leur est plus difficile de détecter les non-indications. Les plus conservateurs d'entre eux sont plus sujets à prendre en charge les patients, même si cela n'est pas nécessaire (non-indications). Par exemple, les plus conservateurs (groupe 4) sont plus enclins, comparés à ceux étant dans le groupe 1, à prendre en charge en chiropraxie un enfant de 5 ans n'ayant jamais eu de douleur ou maladies pour prévenir l'apparition de douleurs rachidiennes (OR = 14,7) et de maladies non musculo-squelettiques (OR = 22). Conclusion: Il est préoccupant de constater que les étudiants qui adhèrent au modèle de la subluxation soient prêts à intégrer ces opinions dans leurs futures prises en charge; souhaitant proposer des ajustements chiropratiques aux patients asymptomatiques. Les déterminants de ce phénomène se doivent d'être compris.

Effect of chiropractic treatment on primary or early secondary prevention: a systematic review with a pedagogic approach.

Introduction: The chiropractic vitalistic approach to the concept of 'subluxation' as a cause of disease lacks both biological plausibility and possibly proof of validity. Nonetheless, some chiropractors purport to prevent disease in general through the use of chiropractic care. Evidence of its effect is needed to be allowed to continue this practice. The objective of this systematic review was therefore to investigate if there is any evidence that spinal manipulations/chiropractic care can be used in primary prevention (PP) and/or early secondary prevention in diseases other than musculoskeletal conditions. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and some specialized chiropractic journals, from inception to October 2017, using terms including: "chiropractic", "subluxation", "wellness", "prevention", "spinal manipulation", "mortality". Included were English language articles that indicated that they studied the clinical preventive effect of or benefit from manipulative therapy/chiropractic treatment in relation to PP and/or early treatment of physical diseases/morbidity in general, other than musculoskeletal disorders. Also, population studies were eligible. Checklists were designed in relation to the description of the reviewed articles and some basic quality criteria. Outcomes of studies were related to their methodological quality, disregarding results from those unable to answer the research questions on effect of treatment. Results: Of the 13.099 titles scrutinized, 13 articles were included (eight clinical studies and five population studies). These studies dealt with various disorders of public health importance such as diastolic blood pressure, blood test immunological markers, and mortality. Only two clinical studies could be used for data synthesis. None showed any effect of spinal manipulation/chiropractic treatment. Conclusion: We found no evidence in the literature of an effect of chiropractic treatment in the scope of PP or early secondary prevention for disease in general. Chiropractors have to assume their role as evidence-based clinicians and the leaders of the profession must accept that it is harmful to the profession to imply a public health importance in relation to the prevention of such diseases through manipulative therapy/chiropractic treatment.

Introduction: Une partie des chiropracteurs ayant une conception vitaliste fondent leur approche sur le diagnostic et le traitement des « subluxations ¼. Dans cette optique, ces dernières pourraient être à l'origine de troubles non musculo squelettiques. Ce postulat n'est. pas plausible et semble manquer de validité. Malgré cela, certains chiropracteurs proposent de prévenir certaines maladies à travers des soins chiropratiques. L'objectif majeur de cet article est. de recenser les preuves concernant la prévention primaire (PP) ou la prévention secondaire précoce des maladies (autres que les troubles neuro musculo squelettiques) en chiropraxie. Méthode: Une recherche bibliographique a été effectuée jusqu'en octobre 2017 via PubMed, Embase, Index to Chiropractic Literature, et d'autres journaux chiropratiques spécialisés. Les termes suivants ont été utilisés: « chiropractic ¼, « subluxation ¼, « wellness ¼, « prevention ¼, « spinal manipulation ¼, « mortality ¼. Les articles publiés en anglais et indiquant étudier les effets ou bénéfices des thérapies manuelles/de la chiropraxie dans le cadre de la PP/de la prévention secondaire précoce des maladies et/ou de la morbidité en générale ont été inclus, ainsi que les études effectuées sur des registres de populations. Des checklists ont été créées afin de décrire et de critiquer de manière simplifiée la qualité des études. Les résultats des études ont été pris en compte en fonction de leur qualité méthodologique. Ceux provenant des études ayant un design non adapté aux questions de recherche concernant les effets ou bénéfices du traitement chiropratique n'ont pas été pris en compte. Résultats: Sur les 13,099 titres recensés, 13 articles ont été retenus (huit études cliniques et cinq études sur des registres de populations). Ces études traitent de différents sujets d'importance en santé publique: hypertension artérielle, troubles immunologiques, mortalité, etc. Seulement deux études ont pu être utilisées pour l'analyse de leurs résultats. Aucunes d'entre elles n'objectivent un effet suite aux manipulations vertébrales/ traitements chiropratiques. Conclusion: Aucune preuve dans la littérature sur l'effet ou bénéfice des manipulations vertébrales/traitements chiropratiques dans le cadre de la PP ou de la prévention secondaire précoce des maladies en général n'a pu être mis en évidence. Les chiropracteurs doivent adopter une pratique evidence based, et les dirigeants de la profession devraient accepter qu'il soit dangereux d'affirmer avoir un rôle dans la prévention des maladies non musculo-squelettiques par la thérapie manuelle.

Primary prevention in chiropractic practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors are primarily concerned with musculoskeletal disorders but have the responsibility to deal also with prevention in other areas. OBJECTIVES: To establish the prevalence of chiropractors who have a positive opinion on the use of primary prevention (PP), their actual use of PP, and the proportion of patients who consult for PP in relation to (i) musculoskeletal disorders, (ii) public health issues, or (iii) chiropractic treatment for wellness. METHOD: A systematic search for literature was done using PubMed, Embase, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Google Scholar and updated on February 15th 2017. Inclusion criteria were: surveys on chiropractors and/or chiropractic patients, information had to be present on PP in relation to the percentage of patients who consult for PP in chiropractic practice or in a chiropractic student clinic, and/or the percentage of chiropractors who reported using PP, and/or information on chiropractors' opinions of the use of PP, in the English, French, or Scandinavian languages. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines. Articles were classified as 'good', 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' based on scores of quality items. Results from the latter group were not taken into account. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were included, reporting on twenty-six studies, 19 of which dealt with wellness. The proportion of chiropractors who stated that they had a positive opinion on PP was generally higher than the proportion of chiropractors offering PP. Most chiropractors offered some type of PP for musculoskeletal disorders and more than a half stated that they did so in the public health area but also for wellness. For all types of PP, however, it was rarely stated to be the reason for patients consulting. Regardless the type of PP, the proportion of patients who actually consulted specifically for PP was much smaller than the proportion of chiropractors offering PP. CONCLUSION: More research efforts have been put into wellness than into prevention of musculoskeletal disorders or public health-related disorders. It therefore seems that parts of the chiropractic profession are in search of an understanding of various aspects of clinical practice over and above its traditional musculoskeletal role. Interestingly, only a small proportion of chiropractic patients consult for PP, despite the readiness of the profession to offer such services.