The impact and public health response of chiropractors to the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey across four continents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on healthcare professionals has implications for healthcare delivery, including the public health guidance provided to patients. This study aims to assess the response and impact of COVID-19 on chiropractors internationally, and examines the public health response of chiropractors to the COVID-19 pandemic practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care versus subluxation-based care paradigm. Methods A survey was distributed to chiropractors in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Hong Kong, United Kingdom and United States (Oct. 2nd–Dec. 22nd, 2020) via professional bodies/publications, and social media. Questions were categorised into three domains: socio-demographic, public health response and business/financial impact. Multivariable logistic regression explored survey items associated with chiropractors practising under different self-reported paradigms. Results A total of 2061 chiropractors representing four global regions completed the survey. Our recruitment method did not allow the calculation of an accurate response rate. The vast majority initiated COVID-19 infection control changes within their practice setting, including increased disinfecting of treatment equipment (95%), frequent contact areas (94%) and increased hand hygiene (94%). While findings varied by region, most chiropractors (85%) indicated that they had implemented regulator advice on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Suspension of face-to-face patient care during the peak of the pandemic was reported by 49% of the participants with 26% implementing telehealth since the pandemic began. Chiropractors practising under a musculoskeletal spine-care paradigm were more likely to implement some/all regulator advice on patient PPE use (odds ratio [OR] = 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57, 6.74) and practitioner PPE use (OR = 2.59; 95% CI 1.32, 5.08); trust COVID-19 public health information provided by government/World Health Organisation/chiropractic bodies (OR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.49, 4.10), and initiate patient telehealth in response to COVID-19 (OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.02, 2.08) compared to those practising under a subluxation-based paradigm. Conclusions Chiropractors who responded to our survey made substantial infectious control changes in response to COVID-19. However, there was regional variation in the implementation of the advised practitioner and patient use of PPE and limited overall use of telehealth consultations by chiropractors during COVID-19. Musculoskeletal spine-care chiropractors were more adaptive to certain COVID-19 public health changes within their practice setting than subluxation-based chiropractors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".