MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W140951078

An audit of health products and services marketed on chiropractic websites in Alberta and consideration of these practices in the context of chiropractic codes of conduct and ethics.

2007· article· en· W140951078 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacey Page

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticContext (archaeology)AuditHealth careBusinessMedicineService (business)Alternative medicineFamily medicineAdvertisingMarketingPolitical scienceAccountingLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic's success as a health care profession is evidenced in part by the rising number of practitioners. Paradoxically, this success may start to cost the profession, as the number of consumers may not be increasing proportionally. Fewer patients mean less income for practitioners. Some chiropractors are responding to these pressures by marketing health products, and services. OBJECTIVES: To describe the extent to which Alberta chiropractors with websites sold health products and the extent to which fee discounts/service inducements were advertised. To consider these practices in the context of chiropractic codes of conduct and ethics. METHODS: Chiropractic websites in the province of Alberta were identified using the online Telus Business Finder and cross-referenced with the Yellow Pages print directories. The websites were searched and an inventory of the health products for sale was recorded. Fee discounts and service inducements were also recorded. RESULTS: 56 websites were identified and reviewed. Just under two-thirds of the chiropractic websites surveyed contained information on health products for sale. Orthotics were sold most often (N = 29 practices; 51.8%), followed by pillows and supports (N = 15: 26.8%), vitamins/nutritional supplements (N = 15; 26.8%) and exercise/rehabilitation products (N = 10; 17.9%). Nine practices (16.1%) offered some type of inducement to potential customers. These included discounts on treatment packages (N = 2; 3.6%), free gait/ posture analyses (N = 2; 3.6%) and free general consultations with the chiropractors (N = 3; 5.4%) CONCLUSIONS: The marketing of health care products and services by chiropractors in Alberta is common. Such practices raise ethical considerations for the profession. Professional guidelines vary on the acceptability of these practices. Consumer and practitioner perspectives and practices regarding retailing need to be further examined.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→