MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408886176 · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12540-z

A national survey of osteopaths’ conceptions of practice in France: structural validity of the Osteo-TAQfr and the tendency toward technical rationality

2025· article· en· W4408886176 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver P. Thomson, Loïc Treffel, Agathe Wagner, Erwann Jacquot, Jerry Draper‐Rodi, Chantal Morin, Brett Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing researchRationalityHealth informaticsHealth administrationMedicinePublic healthQuality of Life ResearchPain medicineFamily medicineNursingEpistemologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of osteopathy in France, little is known about how French osteopaths conceptualise key aspects of their practice, including skills, knowledge, and decision-making. This study aimed to adapt and validate the Osteopaths' Therapeutic Approaches Questionnaire (Osteo-TAQ) for use in a French osteopathic population (Osteo-TAQfr) and to examine the professional profile and core elements of clinical practice among French osteopaths. The first objective was to establish the psychometric properties of the Osteo-TAQfr within a French osteopathic population. The second aim was to explore French osteopaths' conceptions of practice and their approach to patient care, thereby contributing to a broader understanding of the profession in France and its relevance within the discourse on allied health professions (AHPs). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to (1) adapt and validate the French version of the Osteopaths' Therapeutic Approaches Questionnaire (Osteo-TAQfr) and (2) explore osteopaths' conceptions of practice in France. The translation and cultural adaptation process was informed by cognitive interviews to ensure linguistic and contextual appropriateness. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the factor structure in the French osteopathic context and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the validity of previously established constructs-Professional Artistry (PA) and Technical Rationality (TR). Internal consistency was evaluated using McDonald's omega (ω). RESULTS: The survey yielded 1,703 complete responses. Analysis supported a two-factor model with PA andTR subscales, both showing strong reliability estimations (PA ω = 0.882; TR ω = 0.873). Minor theory-informed adjustments improved model fit. A moderate negative correlation was observed between the PA and TR subscales (r=-0.407). Respondents with additional health professions qualifications scored lower on the PA subscale and higher on the TR subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The Osteo-TAQfr is an original tool that assesses conceptions of osteopathic practice in France. Findings reveal a predominance of TR among French osteopaths, characterised by biomedical, technique-driven approaches. These results have significant implications for aligning osteopathic education and practice with contemporary AHP paradigms, including patient-centred care and interdisciplinary collaboration. Further research should explore the transferability of the Osteo-TAQ across other healthcare systems and its potential impact on clinical outcomes and professional development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→