The Perspectives and Practices of Alberta Chiropractors Regarding the Sale of Health Care Products in Chiropractic Offices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe the practices and perspectives of doctors of chiropractic in Alberta, Canada, regarding the sale of health products. This practice is considered in terms of ethical principles and professional practice standards. METHODS: Chiropractic Web sites in Alberta were identified using the publically available Web site of the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors. A random sample of chiropractors was drawn and mailed a brief 4-page survey and return envelope. There was a follow-up mail out to nonrespondents 3 weeks later. Practitioners provided responses regarding their personal and professional characteristics and their perspectives and practices regarding health product sales. RESULTS: A total of 265 responses were received (response rate, 51.2%). Most practitioners endorsed health product sales by chiropractors (95%), and most were engaged in the practice (89%). Orthotics (77%) and pillows (69%) were sold most often, followed by nutritional supplements (68%), hot/cold packs (68%), and vitamins (52%). Some respondents identified areas of potential ethical concern, including product safety and efficacy, professional influence on consumer product purchase, and potential conflict of interest. Codes of ethics and conduct offer some guidance to practitioners, but their awareness of standards varied. CONCLUSIONS: The chiropractic profession within Alberta condones product sales, and most of its membership engages in the practice. Individual members differ in their perspectives on this practice and in their awareness of the national code of ethics and conduct.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".