Abstract
This article is a follow-up on our previous work examining Canadian chiropractors’ attitudes towards chiropractic philosophy and scope of practice and their implications for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. In this current study, we examined Canadian chiropractors’ attitudes toward standards of care, the organizations developing them and their relationship to the philosophy index. The findings indicated that there was no agreement about the definition of standards of care among chiropractors, although there was strong support for the concept. Most chiropractors preferred that chiropractic organizations set standards of care - the strongest support was for the Canadian Chiropractic Association. Finally, we found differences among chiropractors’ attitudes toward standards of care and the organizations developing them with respect to philosophy. Empirically oriented chiropractors supported only a narrow definition of standards of care limited to issues surrounding safety and diagnosis. In addition, empirically oriented chiropractors would only support the development of standards of care by an expert panel of chiropractors. Rationalist and moderates supported the development of standards of care by a broader range of chiropractic organizations. We concluded that successful implementation of standards of care could occur if the CCA, in consultation with other chiropractic organizations, was actively committed to this initiative.
Keywords: chiropractic, standards, practice guidelines
Full text
PDF
Images in this article
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Carter A. O., Battista R. N., Hodge M. J., Lewis S., Basinski A., Davis D. Report on activities and attitudes of organizations active in the clinical practice guidelines field. CMAJ. 1995 Oct 1;153(7):901–907. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Durand-Zaleski I., Bonnet F., Rochant H., Bierling P., Lemaire F. Usefulness of consensus conferences: the case of albumin. Lancet. 1992 Dec 5;340(8832):1388–1390. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92568-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grimshaw J., Russell I. Achieving health gain through clinical guidelines. I: Developing scientifically valid guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1993 Dec;2(4):243–248. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.4.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grol R. Implementing guidelines in general practice care. Qual Health Care. 1992 Sep;1(3):184–191. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.3.184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kanouse D. E., Jacoby I. When does information change practitioners' behavior? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4(1):27–33. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300003214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kelly J. T., Toepp M. C. Practice parameters: development, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992 Dec;18(12):405–409. doi: 10.1016/s0097-5990(16)30565-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis S. Paradox, process and perception: the role of organizations in clinical practice guidelines development. CMAJ. 1995 Oct 15;153(8):1073–1077. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lomas J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: who should do what? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993 Dec 31;703:226–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26351.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lomas J., Enkin M., Anderson G. M., Hannah W. J., Vayda E., Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA. 1991 May 1;265(17):2202–2207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]