- Email: [email protected]
Practice-based osteopathic research
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2003; 6(1): 6
© 2003 Research Media
Editorial
Practice-based osteopathic research In this edition of the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine you will find articles that explore a number of different aspects of osteopathy from authors in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States. There is an emphasis in this edition on practitioner- based research, with a number of articles reporting original practice-based research and others discussing approaches to practice-based research. Bryan McIlwraith reports on a survey he conducted of 1200 consecutive patients in his private practice in Scotland. This is an interesting article when read in the context of previous cross-sectional descriptive studies of osteopathic practice. The point we would like to highlight is the importance of systematically documenting characteristics of osteopathic practice, and this article is an example of the type of research that osteopaths in private practice can conduct. Research does not have to be expensive, overly time-consuming and complicated. There are many characteristics of osteopathic practice that are undocumented. Those osteopaths in practice who would like to contribute to the literature are encouraged to contact their local educational institutions or professional associations for advice on how to conduct simple research in their practice settings. In a new section of the journal titled Evidence in Practice, Robert Moran and Anthony Mullany seek to answer a clinical question using an evidence-based medicine framework within the time constraints of everyday practice. In promotion of research at the practitioner level, Graham Sanders outlines the strategy of single system research designs and provides a discussion of their scientific merit, and applicability to practice-based osteopathic research. In a communication to the profession, William Johnston and Joseph Vorro outline their ideas regarding descriptive research at the practitioner level, suggesting that the functional approach may be one way to document patient characteristics in an objective manner. We hope that these articles promote discussion and debate about practice-based osteopathic research and encourage readers to provide comment in the letters to the editor forum. Karen Lenehan and colleagues report the results of their investigation of muscle energy technique (MET) in the thoracic spine and it's effect on gross trunk range of motion. By it's very nature, this type of research cannot explore the effectiveness of MET as used within the clinical setting at the patient-osteopath level. Many variables in this study needed to be controlled in a way that is not reflective of an actual osteopathic treatment. Of course, this research reduces MET to an isolated technique in order to understand what effects an isolated MET has in the thoracic spine.
As Patterson 1describes in the text Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine, researching an osteopathic technique is different from researching an osteopathic treatment, and both types of research are important for the profession to undertake. In April this year, the 4 a International Conference for Advances in Osteopathic Research (ICAOR) is being held in London, UK. This conference continues to attract the participation of researchers from around the globe and reflects the necessary collaboration and collegiality of the broader international profession. We firmly believe that an international approach is necessary so that we can pool the resources of the profession and tap into the many and varied opinions that abound. Osteopathy has always had varied approaches and conceptual models and rather than following the 'one true way' we hope to publish articles that present scholarly discussions of these differing models of thought in order to challenge our mindset, broaden our scope and improve our practice. This international osteopathic journal is specifically dedicated to research that explores any aspect of osteopathy: (1) from basic science research that seeks answers to isolated questions; (2) clinical research that evaluates the reliability and validity of osteopathic diagnostic procedures; (3) outcomes research that tests the efficacy of osteopathic techniques and treatment; and (4) qualitative research that explores those numerous aspects of the patient-osteopath interaction that cannot be quantified. While this has always been our stated goal, we hope readers understand that the journal can only grow at the same pace as the developing research outputs of those in the profession who are actively engaged in generating research. The articles we publish and the quality of those articles are a direct reflection of the growing research literacy of the profession. As the years go by and the research skills and interests of the profession increase, we hope to publish articles that explore the full scope of osteopathic practice. Nicholas Lucas Robert Moran Editors
REFERENCE 1.
Patterson MM. Osteopathic Research. In: Ward RC. ed. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997: 1117.
© 2003 Research Media
Editorial
Practice-based osteopathic research In this edition of the Journal of Osteopathic Medicine you will find articles that explore a number of different aspects of osteopathy from authors in Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States. There is an emphasis in this edition on practitioner- based research, with a number of articles reporting original practice-based research and others discussing approaches to practice-based research. Bryan McIlwraith reports on a survey he conducted of 1200 consecutive patients in his private practice in Scotland. This is an interesting article when read in the context of previous cross-sectional descriptive studies of osteopathic practice. The point we would like to highlight is the importance of systematically documenting characteristics of osteopathic practice, and this article is an example of the type of research that osteopaths in private practice can conduct. Research does not have to be expensive, overly time-consuming and complicated. There are many characteristics of osteopathic practice that are undocumented. Those osteopaths in practice who would like to contribute to the literature are encouraged to contact their local educational institutions or professional associations for advice on how to conduct simple research in their practice settings. In a new section of the journal titled Evidence in Practice, Robert Moran and Anthony Mullany seek to answer a clinical question using an evidence-based medicine framework within the time constraints of everyday practice. In promotion of research at the practitioner level, Graham Sanders outlines the strategy of single system research designs and provides a discussion of their scientific merit, and applicability to practice-based osteopathic research. In a communication to the profession, William Johnston and Joseph Vorro outline their ideas regarding descriptive research at the practitioner level, suggesting that the functional approach may be one way to document patient characteristics in an objective manner. We hope that these articles promote discussion and debate about practice-based osteopathic research and encourage readers to provide comment in the letters to the editor forum. Karen Lenehan and colleagues report the results of their investigation of muscle energy technique (MET) in the thoracic spine and it's effect on gross trunk range of motion. By it's very nature, this type of research cannot explore the effectiveness of MET as used within the clinical setting at the patient-osteopath level. Many variables in this study needed to be controlled in a way that is not reflective of an actual osteopathic treatment. Of course, this research reduces MET to an isolated technique in order to understand what effects an isolated MET has in the thoracic spine.
As Patterson 1describes in the text Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine, researching an osteopathic technique is different from researching an osteopathic treatment, and both types of research are important for the profession to undertake. In April this year, the 4 a International Conference for Advances in Osteopathic Research (ICAOR) is being held in London, UK. This conference continues to attract the participation of researchers from around the globe and reflects the necessary collaboration and collegiality of the broader international profession. We firmly believe that an international approach is necessary so that we can pool the resources of the profession and tap into the many and varied opinions that abound. Osteopathy has always had varied approaches and conceptual models and rather than following the 'one true way' we hope to publish articles that present scholarly discussions of these differing models of thought in order to challenge our mindset, broaden our scope and improve our practice. This international osteopathic journal is specifically dedicated to research that explores any aspect of osteopathy: (1) from basic science research that seeks answers to isolated questions; (2) clinical research that evaluates the reliability and validity of osteopathic diagnostic procedures; (3) outcomes research that tests the efficacy of osteopathic techniques and treatment; and (4) qualitative research that explores those numerous aspects of the patient-osteopath interaction that cannot be quantified. While this has always been our stated goal, we hope readers understand that the journal can only grow at the same pace as the developing research outputs of those in the profession who are actively engaged in generating research. The articles we publish and the quality of those articles are a direct reflection of the growing research literacy of the profession. As the years go by and the research skills and interests of the profession increase, we hope to publish articles that explore the full scope of osteopathic practice. Nicholas Lucas Robert Moran Editors
REFERENCE 1.
Patterson MM. Osteopathic Research. In: Ward RC. ed. Foundations for Osteopathic Medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997: 1117.