Physicians' and patients' attitudes toward manual medicine: Implications for continuing medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Manual medicine (MM) is a physical modality infrequently used in primary care clinics. This study examines primary care physicians' experience with and attitudes toward the use of MM in the primary care setting, as well as patients' experience with and attitudes toward MM. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of physicians (54.3% response rate) attending a 1-week primary care continuing medical education (CME) conference in Kentucky. Similar surveys were also mailed to a random sample of primary care patients (35.3% response rate) living in a service region in which most conference attendees practiced. RESULTS: Similar responses were obtained from physicians and patients. A majority (81% and 76%, respectively) of physicians and patients felt that MM was safe, and over half (56% of physicians and 59% of patients) felt that MM should be available in the primary care setting. Although less than half (40%) of the physicians reported any educational exposure to MM and less than one-quarter (20%) have administered MM in their practice, most (71%) respondents endorsed desiring more instruction in MM. The majority of those seeking additional educational exposure (56%) were willing to pay for MM training that included CME credit. DISCUSSION: This survey suggests that primary care physicians feel that there is currently insufficient education in MM. The majority of physicians and patients feel that MM is beneficial, safe, and appropriate for use in a primary care setting. Thus, there may be a rising demand for quality instruction in MM from physical medicine doctors and other licensed therapists who currently practice MM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".