The integration of chiropractors into healthcare teams: a case study from sport medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the integration of chiropractors into multi-disciplinary healthcare teams in the specialisation of sport medicine. Sport medicine is practised in a number of contexts in professional and amateur sport. The current analysis focuses on the highest levels of amateur sport, as exemplified by the Olympics. Data are taken from interviews with 35 health professionals, including physicians, physiotherapists, athletic therapists and chiropractors. A defining feature of sport medicine is an emphasis on performance, which is the basis for a client-centred model of practice. These two elements have provided the main grounds for the inclusion of chiropractic in sport medicine. While the common understanding that 'athletes wanted them' has helped to secure a position for chiropractic within the system of sport medicine professions, this position is marked by ongoing tensions with other professions over the scope and content of practice, and the nature of the patient-practitioner relationship. In the context of these tensions, chiropractors' success in achieving acceptance on sport medicine teams is contingent on two factors: (a) reduced scope of practice in which they work primarily as manual therapists; and (b) the exemplary performance of individual practitioners who 'fit' into multi-disciplinary sport medicine teams.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".