The extent and quality of evidence for osteopathic education: A scoping review

Abstract

Objectives

Standards of osteopathic training and regulation differ by geographical location, and little is known regarding the evidence base for education within osteopathy. This review is the first to chart and appraise the osteopathic pedagogical literature and presents recommendations for further research and practice.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted of EBSCO, OVID (Embase, Medline), CINAHL, Psycinfo, Open Grey, ProQuest and ERIC databases, to identify research related to osteopathic education. Review, selection, data extraction, characterization and Risk of Bias was performed by two independent reviewers and results were summarised using Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Results

The search identified 66 research papers published from 2002 to 2022. The included papers varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. The returns were grouped into five categories Teaching, Assessment, Clinical education and preparedness for practice, Curriculum and Miscellaneous. The evidence is generally of robust methodological quality, with bias rated as 29 Low, 26 Moderate, and 11 High. However, most of the methodological designs would traditionally be considered low on the hierarchy of evidence, with 19 commentary articles and the only Randomised Controlled Trial being rated High risk of bias.

Conclusions

The evidence regarding what is taught is underdeveloped and enhancing consensus regarding benchmarking of osteopathic education and minimum competencies is needed. Active learning was an area highlighted as preferred by learners as was self-directed study. This may also integrate more practical learning aids and electronic or online learning.