Journal of Chiropractic Education最新文献

Objective: This paper is the eighth in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the possible impact that the final decision in favor of the plaintiffs may have had on the chiropractic profession.

Methods: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive timeline. This paper is the eighth of the series that discusses how the trial decision may have influenced the chiropractic that we know today in the United States.

Results: Chiropractic practice, education, and research have changed since before the lawsuit was filed. There are several areas in which we propose that the trial decision may have had an impact on the chiropractic profession.

Conclusion: The lawsuit removed the barriers that were implemented by organized medicine against the chiropractic profession. The quality of chiropractic practice, education, and research continues to improve and the profession continues to meet its most fundamental mission: to improve the lives of patients. Chiropractors practicing in the United States today are allowed to collaborate freely with other health professionals. Today, patients have the option to access chiropractic care because of the dedicated efforts of many people to reduce the previous barriers. It is up to the present-day members of the medical and chiropractic professions to look back and to remember what happened. By recalling the events surrounding the lawsuit, we may have a better understanding about our professions today. This information may help to facilitate interactions between medicine and chiropractic and to develop more respectful partnerships focused on creating a better future for the health of the public. The future of the chiropractic profession rests in the heads, hearts, and hands of its current members to do what is right.

Objective: This is the seventh paper in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the lawsuit that was first filed in 1976 and concluded with the final denial of appeal in 1990.

Methods: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers following a successive time line. This paper, the seventh of the series, considers the information of the 2 trials and the judge's decision.

Results: By the time the first trial began in 1980, the AMA had already changed its anti-chiropractic stance to allow medical doctors to associate with chiropractors if they wished. In the first trial, the chiropractors were not able to overcome the very stigma that organized medicine worked so hard to create over many decades, which resulted in the jury voting in favor of the AMA and other defendants. The plaintiffs, Drs Patricia Arthur, James Bryden, Michael Pedigo, and Chester Wilk, continued with their pursuit of justice. Their lawyer, Mr George McAndrews, fought for an appeal and was allowed a second trial. The second trial was a bench trial in which Judge Susan Getzendanner declared her final judgment that "the American Medical Association (AMA) and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws." After the AMA's appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 1990, the decision was declared permanent. The injunction that was ordered by the judge was published in the January 1, 1988, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Conclusion: The efforts by Mr McAndrews and his legal team and the persistence of the plaintiffs and countless others in the chiropractic profession concluded in Judge Getzendanner's decision, which prevented the AMA from rebuilding barriers or developing another boycott. The chiropractic profession was ready to move into its next century.

Objective: This is the fourth article in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the history of the origins of AMA's increased efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession and the development of the Chiropractic Committee, which would later become the AMA Committee on Quackery.

Methods: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. Our methods included obtaining primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 articles following a successive timeline. This article is the fourth of the series that explores the origins of AMA's increased efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession.

Results: In the 1950s, the number of chiropractors grew in Iowa, and chiropractors were seeking equity with other health professions through legislation. In response, the Iowa State Medical Society created a Chiropractic Committee to contain chiropractic and prompted the creation of the "Iowa Plan" to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The AMA leadership was enticed by the plan and hired the Iowa State Medical Society's legislative counsel, who structured the operation. The AMA adopted the Iowa Plan for nationwide implementation to eradicate chiropractic. The formation of the AMA's Committee on Chiropractic, which was later renamed the Committee on Quackery (CoQ), led overt and covert campaigns against chiropractic. Both national chiropractic associations were fully aware of many, but not all, of organized medicine's plans to restrain chiropractic.

Conclusion: By the 1960s, organized medicine heightened its efforts to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession. The intensified campaign began in Iowa and was adopted by the AMA as a national campaign. Although the meetings of the AMA committees were not public, the war against chiropractic was distributed widely in lay publications, medical sources, and even chiropractic journals. Details about events would eventually be more fully revealed during the Wilk v AMA trials.

Objective: This paper is the first in a series that explores the historical events surrounding the Wilk v American Medical Association (AMA) lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the AMA, the American Hospital Association, and other medical specialty societies violated antitrust law by restraining chiropractors' business practices. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the history of the AMA and the origins of chiropractic and to explore how the AMA began its monopoly of health care in the United States, possible reasons that organized medicine acted against chiropractic, and how these events influenced the chiropractic profession.

Methods: This historical research study used a phenomenological approach to qualitative inquiry into the conflict between regular medicine and chiropractic and the events before, during, and after a legal dispute at the time of modernization of the chiropractic profession. We used primary and secondary data sources. The final narrative recount was developed into 8 papers that follow a successive time line. This paper is the first of the series and explores the origins of the aversion of organized American medicine to other health professions and the origins of the chiropractic profession.

Results: The AMA began in the mid-1800s to unify like-minded "regular" medical physicians who developed a code of ethics and promoted higher educational standards. Their efforts to unify had excluded other types of health care providers, which they called "irregular" practitioners. However, Americans were seeking more natural alternatives to the harsh methods that regular medical physicians offered at that time. Nearly 50 years after the AMA began, the chiropractic profession attempted to emerge during a time when many patients valued vitalism and their freedom to choose what health care provider they would access.

Conclusion: During the years that chiropractic developed as a healing profession, organized medicine was already well established and developing a monopoly in American health care. These events created the foundation on which the tensions between these professions were built and ultimately resulted in the Wilk v AMA lawsuit.

Objective: This study uses a pre- and post-training program evaluation of chiropractic interns to (1) describe changes in their frequency of occupational history taking before and after a 1-hour training and (2) to document the attitudes and beliefs regarding occupational health and history taking.

Methods: All chiropractic interns at 1 clinic location completed questionnaires assessing their attitudes and perceptions regarding documenting the occupational history of their patients each trimester they were enrolled in the study. Each intern enrolled in the study for 2 or more trimesters participated in a 1-hour-long training session on taking an occupational history. The supervising clinician independently evaluated charting behaviors of interns for the duration of the study.

Results: The supervising clinician assessed 20 interns' level of documenting occupational history for 202 new patient or reexamination visits. A majority of interns (85% at baseline) were interested in occupational health, and 80% believed that occupational history taking was "very important." Intern charting behaviors increased after training related to documentation of past occupation (62.9% from 32.4%) and relating the chief complaint to work (59.7% from 30.0%). Detailed occupational history taking remained low throughout the study but demonstrated a doubling in documentation after training (16.1% from 8.6%).

Conclusion: Chiropractic interns and clinicians should be adequately trained in occupational health history documentation practices as they are likely to care for work-related injuries. Short training modules appear to be effective in demonstrating small changes in documentation related to occupational history taking.

Objective: This study aimed to examine the effect of active learning strategies using analogical models versus didactic lectures on student learning of spinal anatomy and biomechanics.

Methods: Students enrolled into year 1 of a chiropractic program in 2014 and 2015 were eligible to participate. The 2014 cohort received didactic lectures. Active learning approaches using analogical models were incorporated into the 2015 cohort. Both groups received an identical written assessment at the end of the 3rd lecture. Between-group differences in age and written assessment percentages were analyzed using independent t tests.

Results: Fifty-nine students from the 2014 cohort and 62 students from the 2015 cohort took part. There were no significant differences in age or gender between the cohorts. The differences in the mean of the written assessment percentages between the didactic group and the analogical models group were significant (p = .00), with a mean difference of 22.6% (95% CI, 17.4-27.9). The didactic group mean percentage was 37.9% (SD 15.8) and was within a fail percentage bracket. The analogical models group mean percentage was 60.6% (SD 13.1) and within a pass percentage bracket.

Conclusion: The analogical models group performed significantly better than the didactic lecture group, particularly with regard to content delivered using literal or surface analogies.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to present an overview of the key medical and surgical specialties most likely relevant to chiropractic practice in the United States. Understanding the similarities and differences in the training and typical practices of these medical providers may enhance a chiropractor's likelihood to collaborate and increase participation in team-based care.

Methods: This was a descriptive analysis to develop preliminary content on US medical physician specialties. Selection was informed by the authors' clinical experience with medical collaboration, along with results of previously published work on medical specialties most commonly reported to be involved in referral patterns with US chiropractors. Data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and individual specialty boards were synthesized through an iterative process, and supplemented by qualitative input from subject matter experts. Data were entered into tabular format for review and analysis.

Results: We propose that the medical and surgical specialties most relevant to typical US chiropractic practice are internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, pain medicine, rheumatology, radiology, orthopedic surgery, and neurological surgery. There is overlap in scope of conditions and diagnostic and therapeutic tools utilized by various medical specialties.

Conclusion: This work describes 8 medical and 2 surgical specialties proposed to be most relevant to general chiropractic practice in the United States. The results may have relevance to interprofessional education and collaboration.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess chiropractic college graduates' business experience, education, and need for further education at the time of graduation.

Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey of graduating chiropractic students in 2015 and 2016 regarding their prior business experience, business courses taken before and during chiropractic education, business abilities and needs, and practice plans.

Results: Eighty-one responded out of 114 surveyed (71% response rate). Less than half had taken college-level business courses or had business experience prior to entering chiropractic college. Almost 90% of respondents took 1 or more of 3 elective courses in business skills during their chiropractic education. Sixty-eight percent planned to work as an associate doctor and to be in private practice after 5 years. The respondents indicated that they were more prepared in the business abilities of ethics/risk management/jurisprudence, employee management, strategic planning, and marketing/advertising, and least prepared in business operations, accounting, and billing/reimbursement. In the areas of economics, finance, business taxes, and starting a practice, the respondents indicated a need for further education or experience. It was statistically significant (p < .001) that students who had prior business experience and/or college business education were more confident in operating a health care practice.

Conclusion: Chiropractic business education provides students with some of the practice management skills essential for operating a health care practice. Students with prior business experience and/or education reported more confidence in their ability to run a chiropractic practice immediately after graduation.