Future Research by the Australian Chiropractic Profession: Analysis of Comments and Suggestions From a Nationwide Survey of Academics and Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across listed research domains and to seek their views on existing chiropractic research strategies. Concurrent objectives were to gain insight into the perspectives on characteristics of research and solicit ideas and suggestions for future research from both groups. METHODS: This study used a mixed-method research design to collect data using an online survey portal. Australian chiropractic academics (n = 220) and practicing chiropractors who were also members of a nationally representative, practice-based research network database (n = 1680) were invited to participate. Data were collected (February 19, 2019, to May 24, 2019). The free-text data were analyzed primarily via semantic coding and verbatim referential units in cases where the category was an exact match for the textual data. Content analyses of the qualitative data were presented in a tabulated and narrative manner as identified domains. Selected representative examples were provided verbatim. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 44% for full-time equivalent academics, 8% for casuals and part-time chiropractic academics, and 21.5% for Australian Chiropractic Research Network database chiropractic practitioners. Open-text data comprised a narrower focus on musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and opposition or reservations by academics and some practitioners toward the research agenda of those espousing traditional concepts and terminology. Comments from both groups illustrate the strongly held views that characterize divergent factions of the chiropractic profession. Some practitioners were highly critical of the narrow focus and epistemological paradigm of Australian university-based research, while others were strongly supportive of the traditional focus of the Australian Spinal Research Foundation. Australian academics at the 4 university-based programs held the view that MSK and spinal pain, for which some evidence already exists, should be the priority of future research, building on what is known. Practitioners believed that future research should be directed toward expanded areas such as basic science, younger populations, and non-MSK conditions. Respondents were sharply divided on attitudes toward traditional chiropractic terminology, concepts, and philosophy and the utility of future research on these topics. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings suggest there is a division in the Australian chiropractic profession regarding research direction and priorities. This divide exists between academics and researchers and within field practitioners. This study highlights the attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of important stakeholder groups, which should be considered by decision-makers when formulating research policy, strategy, and prioritization of funding.

Research Priorities of the Australian Chiropractic Profession: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Academics and Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across a set of research domains to determine the agreement or disagreement based on these domains. METHODS: We conducted a pilot-tested online survey focusing on the following 5 principal research domains: basic science, conditions (disorders chiropractors may encounter), patient subgroups, clinical interventions, and practice and public health/health services. Responses were sought regarding support for funding research scholarships, practice-based research networks, scientific conferences/symposia, journals, and existing research agendas. Data were collected (February 19 to May 24, 2019) from a sample of chiropractic academics (n1 = 33) representing 4 Australian programs and practicing chiropractors (n2 = 340). Collected data were ranked and analyzed to determine agreement across domains and items. RESULTS: There was agreement between the 2 groups across the majority (>90%) of domain items. The closest agreement and highest rankings were achieved for the "clinical interventions and practice" and "conditions" domains. Disagreement was observed within specific domain items, such as patient subgroups (infants), and for 1 intervention (chiropractic-specific techniques). Disagreement also occurred outside of the main domains, including research agenda support and funding. CONCLUSIONS: There was overall agreement between practicing chiropractors and academics across most research area domain items, which should help facilitate consensus-led development of any potential Australian Chiropractic research agenda. Disagreements across specific domain items, such as population subgroups, interventions, and funding require further investigation.