How Important is Research-Based Practice to Chiropractors and Massage Therapists?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the perceptions of research, frequency of use of research findings in practice, and the level of research skills of chiropractors and massage therapists in Canada. Predictors of application of research findings in clinical practice were also explored. METHODS: A survey was mailed to members of the College of Chiropractors of Alberta (n = 833) and the Massage Therapist Association of Alberta (n = 650). Univariate and logistic regression analysis were conducted with SPSS and Stata. RESULTS: A total of 483 questionnaires were returned (response rate, 32.6%). Chiropractors and massage therapists reported an overall positive perception toward research, acknowledging the importance of research to validate their practice. Although both groups felt comfortable using the library, they had little confidence in their research skills and overall application of research in practice was limited. Significant differences were found between the 2 professional groups, with chiropractors reporting more research skills and evidence-based practice. Primary discipline, frequent referral to peer-reviewed journals, and strong agreement with the statement that "research adds credibility to my discipline" were predictors of research application in practice. CONCLUSION: It appears that in Canada neither chiropractors nor massage therapists consistently apply research in practice, which may result from a lack of research education and research skills. The differences between the 2 professional groups may be attributed to the chiropractic profession's relatively more research-focused professional training. Strategies to encourage greater research uptake and evidence-based behavior by practitioners include professional association incentives, such as education credits or practitioner cooperatives that would provide time and support for research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".