Do chiropractic interns use clinical practice guidelines when managing patients with neck pain in France? A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In France, we lack knowledge about factors influencing chiropractors' use of French guideline for managing neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). In particular, we know little about how chiropractic interns use clinical practice guidelines during their training. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a cross-sectional study of chiropractic interns to determine their utilization and conformity with clinical practice guidelines when managing patients with NAD in France. METHOD: We developed a web-based questionnaire which included 3 sections: (1) clinical vignettes; (2) determinants of practice and (3) socio-demographic and current practice information. The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase included 2 groups: chiropractors and students (interns). Ten chiropractors reviewed and made recommendations on content (especially clinical vignettes), readability, and flow of the survey. Fifteen interns were invited to pretest the proposed recruitment strategy and determine time needed to survey completion, assess completeness of data collection, and evaluate its readability and flow in students. Due to the low participation of students during the first phase, 20 additional interns were invited to participate and pilot the revised recruitment strategy during the second phase. A group of 20 interns were invited to participate and pilot the revised recruitment strategy during the second phase. Qualitative feedbacks about the recruitment strategy, the content of the questionnaire and the survey process were collected by phone to improve all these steps if necessary. RESULTS: We collected data from November 2020 to February 2021. In phase 1, 70% of chiropractors (7/10) reviewed the survey and one intern responded (7% participation rate). A revised recruitment strategy was designed and 70% of interns agreed to participate in phase 2. Time to complete the questionnaire was on average 48 m:22 s. Interns evaluated survey content as relevant, comprehensive, covering the range of 4 grades of NAD, and adapted to an intern sample. Five main modifications were recommended by (1) Adjusting survey support; (2) Enhancing communication strategy; (3) Considering interns' comments about the length of the questionnaire; (4) Modifying 2 determinants not adapted to a French context; (5) Adding a proposal when determinants deal with multidisciplinary management. CONCLUSION: Conducting a web-based cross-sectional study of chiropractic interns to assess their utilization and conformity to clinical practice guideline is feasible.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".