An Audit of Health Products Advertised for Sale on Chiropractic Web Sites in Canada and Consideration of These Practices in the Context of Canadian Chiropractic Codes of Ethics and Conduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study describes the extent to which chiropractors with Web sites practicing in Canada advertise health products for sale and considers this practice in the context of chiropractic codes of ethics and conduct. METHODS: Chiropractic Web sites in Canada were identified using a public online business directory (Canada 411). The Web sites were searched, and an inventory of the health products for sale was taken. The influences of type of practice and province of practice on the sale of health product were assessed. Textual comments about health product marketing were summarized. National and provincial codes of ethics were reviewed, and the content on health product advertising was summarized. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven Web sites were reviewed. Just more than half of the Web sites contained information on health products for sale (n = 158, 54%). Orthotics were advertised most often (n = 136 practices, 47%), followed by vitamins/nutritional supplements (n = 53, 18%), pillows and supports (n = 40, 14%), and exercise/rehabilitation products (n = 20, 7%). Chiropractors in solo or group chiropractic practices were less likely to advertise health products than those in multidisciplinary practice (P < .001), whereas chiropractors in BC were less likely to advertise nutritional supplements (P < .01). Provincial codes of ethics and conduct varied in their guidelines regarding health product sales. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in codes of ethics and in the proportions of practitioners advertising health products for sales across the country suggest that opinions may be divided on the acceptability of health product sales. Such practices raise questions and considerations for the chiropractic profession.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".