Pediatric Patients in Swiss Chiropractic Clinics: A Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate practice characteristics of chiropractors who treat pediatric patients in Swiss chiropractic clinics. METHODS: An online survey questionnaire was created and tested for face and content validity. Participation by Swiss chiropractors was voluntary and anonymous and completed November to December 2015. The data were analyzed using SPSS. The analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 144 chiropractors, which represented a 53% response rate, and 98% of the responding practitioners treated patients younger than age 18. The proportion of pediatric patients treated was 8.7%. The most common pediatric age groups were schoolchildren and adolescents, with infants younger than 6 months being the third most common. Musculoskeletal complaints were the most common conditions treated in all age groups. In children younger than 2 years old, nonmusculoskeletal conditions were well represented. Prophylactic examination was common among children 6 years and younger. A total of 61% of responding chiropractors received direct referrals from medical doctors and 56% received direct referrals from pediatricians. The most common age groups for referrals from pediatricians were schoolchildren and adolescents. Only 15% of the chiropractors wrote reports about their pediatric patients to their pediatrician often or regularly; 90% of the responding chiropractors stated they rarely or never refer to a pediatric specialist, and 80% of the chiropractors have never or have rarely been invited to attend medical congresses or to teach the pediatric health care community about chiropractic care for children. CONCLUSION: The majority of chiropractors in Switzerland treat pediatric patients, most commonly schoolchildren and adolescents for musculoskeletal disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".