Considerations for practice-based research: a cross-sectional survey of chiropractic, acupuncture and massage practices
Author
Floden, LysbethHowerter, Amy
Matthews, Eva
Nichter, Mark
Cunningham, James K.
Ritenbaugh, Cheryl
Gordon, Judith S.
Muramoto, Myra L.
Affiliation
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of MedicineSchool of Anthropology, University of Arizona
Issue Date
2015Keywords
Complementary and alternative medicinePractitioners
Chiropractors
Acupuncturists
Massage therapists
Practice-based research
Practice patterns
Cross-sectional survey
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
BioMed Central LtdCitation
Floden et al. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (2015) 15:140 DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0659-7Rights
© 2015 Floden et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).Collection Information
This item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has steadily increased globally over the past two decades and is increasingly playing a role in the healthcare system in the United States. CAM practice-based effectiveness research requires an understanding of the settings in which CAM practitioners provide services. This paper describes and quantifies practice environment characteristics for a cross-sectional sample of doctors of chiropractic (DCs), licensed acupuncturists (LAcs), and licensed massage therapists (LMTs) in the United States. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional telephone survey of DCs (n = 32), LAcs (n = 70), and LMTs (n = 184) in the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, we collected data about each location where practitioners work, as well as measures on practitioner and practice characteristics including: patient volume, number of locations where practitioners worked, CAM practitioner types working at each location, and business models of practice. RESULTS: The majority of practitioners reported having one practice location (93.8% of DCs, 80% of LAcs and 59.8% of LMTs) where they treat patients. Patient volume/week was related to practitioner type; DCs saw 83.13 (SD = 49.29) patients/week, LAcs saw 22.29 (SD = 16.88) patients/week, and LMTs saw 14.21 (SD =10.25) patients per week. Practitioners completed surveys for N = 388 practice locations. Many CAM practices were found to be multidisciplinary and/or have more than one practitioner: 9/35 (25.7%) chiropractic practices, 24/87 (27.6%) acupuncture practices, and 141/266 (53.0%) massage practices. Practice business models across CAM practitioner types were heterogeneous, e.g. sole proprietor, employee, partner, and independent contractor. CONCLUSIONS: CAM practices vary across and within disciplines in ways that can significantly impact design and implementation of practice-based research. CAM research and intervention programs need to be mindful of the heterogeneity of CAM practices in order to create appropriate interventions, study designs, and implementation plans.EISSN
1472-6882Version
Final published versionAdditional Links
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/15/140ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1186/s12906-015-0659-7
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2015 Floden et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).

