Therapeutic interventions employed by Greater Toronto Area chiropractors on pregnant patients: results of a cross-sectional online survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to different biomechanical, nutritional, and hormonal considerations, it is possible that chiropractors may employ different therapeutic interventions and recommendations for pregnant patients than non-pregnant ones. The objective of this study was to determine the therapeutic interventions that chiropractors who are members of the Ontario Chiropractic Association in the Greater Toronto Area most commonly provide to pregnant patients. METHODS: An introductory e-mail was sent in October 2011 to 755 members of the Ontario Chiropractic Association within the Greater Toronto Area five days prior to a 15 question survey being distributed via e-mail. Reminder e-mails were sent 13 days and 27 days later. Using descriptive statistics, demographic information was reported along with reported use of different treatments and recommendations for pregnant patients. RESULTS: A response rate of 23% was obtained. The majority of the respondents (90%) reported using the Diversified technique on pregnant patients, followed by soft tissue therapy (62%) and Activator (42%). The most common adjunctive therapy recommended to pregnant patients was referral to massage therapy (90%). Most of the respondents (92%) indicated that they prescribe stretching exercises to pregnant patients and recommend a multivitamin (84%) or folic acid (81%) to pregnant patients. CONCLUSION: In agreement with previous research on chiropractic technique usage on non-pregnant patients, the majority of respondents indicated treating pregnant patients with the Diversified technique, with other chiropractic techniques being utilized at varying rates on pregnant patients. Most respondents indicated prescribing exercise, and making adjunctive and nutritional recommendations frequently for their pregnant patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".