Abstract
Objective
The purpose of this study was to assess self-reported infection prevention processes and their effect on businesses of chiropractic doctors (DCs) and licensed massage therapists (LMTs) in Mississippi during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods
We developed a survey that was electronically delivered to all licensed DCs and LMTs in Mississippi between August and September 2020. Assessments were made using Qualtrics software, with data management and subsequent analysis including Pearson's χ2 test.
Results
Responses were based on 32 of 323 DCs and 69 of 934 LMTs that were still seeing patients through the pandemic (n = 101, response rate 8%). The DC and LMT practitioners (94%) used treatment table and/or surface sanitizing (91.8%) and hand washing and/or sanitizing (89.8%) between all patients. Female practitioners reported practicing handwashing for at least 20 seconds, whereas male practitioners reported practicing handwashing for at least 15 seconds (P < .001). DCs were more likely to report using gloves for personal protective equipment, and LMTs were more likely to report using face masks (P < .001). Other COVID-19 procedures included limiting practice to acute care (82.5%), checking all patient temperatures (62.9%), sign-in and wait in the car (53.2% LMT vs 6.5% DC, P < .001), and prohibiting all nonpatient visitors (87.7% LMTs vs 9.4% DCs, P < .001). DCs (96.9%) and LMTs (89.9%) reported making referrals for COVID-19 testing or treatment when indicated. LMTs (82.3%) reported seeing fewer patients (P = .03), and older practitioners reported the most economic impact (P = .003) by the pandemic. Patient concerns and LMTs needing more time to perform infection control (P = .04) were reasons cited by practitioners for the reduced number of visits seen.
Conclusion
Most respondents had moderate to high compliance with guidelines on recommended infection prevention processes during fall 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic. This assessment of compliance may be used to help guide future health education and promotion research of disease prevention and mitigation as well as physical and economic burdens faced by DCs and LMTs in Mississippi during a pandemic.
Key Indexing Terms: Infection Control, Coronavirus Infections, Chiropractic, Massage Therapy
Introduction
In 2021, Mississippi was the most multiply-comorbid state in the United States (US) and consistently ranked at or near the bottom of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) health report rankings.1 As of the week ending January 9, 2021, the total number of COVID-19 deaths reached 835150 of 333.94 million across the US (2.5 in 1000 Americans),2 whereas by January 12, 2021, fatalities included 10527 of 2.96 million from Mississippi (3.5 in 1000).3 High blood pressure, ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrest, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and other comorbidities are listed by the CDC as “conditions contributing to deaths where COVID-19 was listed on the death certificate.”2 Some reports estimate 38% of Mississippi residents have at least 1 of these comorbidities.3 For example, with Mississippi being in the stroke belt in the US, after 9 months, the pandemic had already accounted for more than 3 times as many deaths than are attributed to stroke in any recent year.1,3
By March 2020, chiropractic doctors (DCs) but not licensed massage therapists (LMTs) were listed as “essential health providers” by the US Department of Homeland Security,4 and this guidance was subsequently adopted by the State of Mississippi when an executive order by the governor locked down many businesses. Guidelines e-mailed to LMTs by the Mississippi Board of Massage Therapy were more restrictive than guidelines e-mailed by the Mississippi Board of Chiropractic Examiners to licensed DCs,5,6 with the former group required to wear gowns and other personal protective equipment that were not available owing to limited supply. Hence, it is likely that many LMTs in Mississippi stopped practicing for longer periods than did chiropractic physicians. Both of these manual therapy groups historically advocate health and wellness and support nearly all our nation's public health goals espoused by the CDC's Healthy People.7 Prior chiropractic research on table sanitization procedures and education was endorsed by the American Chiropractic Association.8,9 However, public health measures, such as immunization and antimicrobial therapy, are less uniformly supported by some manual therapists, prompting a call for support from the chiropractic scientific community.10 The level of support manual therapists have for guidelines regarding prevention of infectious disease beyond hand and table sanitization, such as masking and social distancing, has not been previously reported for the state of Mississippi. A report of utilization in Australian practices11 and a qualitative descriptive assessment of 18 chiropractors across the world generally suggested compliance with guidelines by practitioners.12
In light of Mississippians’ increased relative risk for COVID-19 mortality, increased exposure as a result of more time spent in the offices of manual therapy practitioners during routine treatments, and lack of prior research regarding infectious disease prevention strategies used by these practitioners, we decided to perform a needs assessment of chiropractic and massage therapy practitioners during COVID-19. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to assess reported infection control measures utilized and business impacts of COVID-19 on DCs and LMTs in Mississippi. A secondary aim was to identify reported compliance with guidelines published by the Mississippi State Department of Health and Mississippi state licensing boards.5,6,13
Methods
Ethics
This study was deemed exempt from review by the institutional review board of Mississippi State University (IRB-20-207). Respondents consented to participating in this study.
Survey
We developed a survey to explore changes in provider behaviors and business practices (eg, reduced hours, fewer appointments to foster social distancing), as well as infectious disease mitigation practices (temperature checks, hand and/or table sanitization, masking) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Face validity was established by forwarding an initial instrument prepared by 1 of us to 2 chiropractic clinicians in private practice, 1 LMT, and 1 coauthor and research scientist. The survey contained no questions that would have placed the respondent in a position to reveal personally identifiable information. Respondents were informed that participation was voluntary and the survey would take no longer than 10 to 15 minutes. There was no requirement to finish the survey once it started (see Supplementary Data for the survey).
We aimed to electronically deliver the survey to all licensed DCs and LMTs in Mississippi. Subsequently, e-mail and postal addresses were obtained from the Mississippi State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the Mississippi State Board of Massage Therapy for all currently licensed practitioners, regardless of their current domicile. Of 380 e-mails to DCs, only 323 currently listed a Mississippi address, with the remainder practicing in other states. It is not known how many of the 323 were practicing prior to the pandemic as opposed to holding a license but not having an active practice. Similarly, of a list of 997 e-mails sent to massage therapists holding a license to practice in Mississippi, 63 lived outside the state, leaving 934 with a Mississippi address, although it is not known how many were maintaining their license but not actually practicing prior to the start of the pandemic. E-mails were sent on August 13, August 27, and September 10, 2020, to all respondents, with subsequent initial assessments made using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics XM, Provo, Utah).
Statistical Analysis
The responses were imported into Statistical Analysis Software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) for data management and analysis. All survey responses were captured as nominal categorical variables except age, which was recoded as binary categorical (≤40 vs >40). The Pearson's χ2 test (or Fisher exact test, for small expected cell count) was used to assess the distribution of survey responses between DCs and LMTs as well as between sex and age groups, with statistical significance assessed at the 5% level of significance. For the purpose of subsequent reportage below, we rated compliance with CDC guidelines as low (<50% reporting compliance), moderate (50%-74% reporting compliance), or high (75% or more reporting compliance).
Results
There were 101 respondents out of 1257 surveys (8% response rate) for data analysis (Table 1). Of those, 32 were DCs, and 69 were LMTs. A total of 146 initially responded; however, 45 respondents were eliminated from further data reduction since they no longer practiced through the early phase of the pandemic. Most respondents were women (75.8%) under the age of 40 (68.4%) who reported having both an academic and professional degree (72.2%). More than half the DCs and nearly one-third of the LMTs responding to the survey were members of their Mississippi state professional association, and a few more were members of more than 1 professional organization.
Table 1.
Demographic Distribution of Survey Respondents Based on Provider Type
| Characteristic | Totala101/1257 | DC32 (31.7%) | LMT69 (68.3%) | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC education, n (%) | DC only | 9 (30.0) | 9 (30.0) | ||
| DC and other degree | 21 (70.0) | 21 (70.0) | |||
| LMT education, n (%) | MT only | 8 (25.8) | 8 (25.8) | ||
| MT and other degree | 23 (74.2) | 23 (74.2) | |||
| Sex, n (%) | Male | 24 (24.2) | 12 (41.4) | 61 (89.7) | <.001 |
| Female | 75 (75.8) | 17 (58.6) | 7 (10.3) | ||
| Age (y), n (%) | ≤40 | 67 (68.4) | 18 (62.1) | 47 (70.2) | .23 |
| >40 | 31 (31.6) | 11 (37.9) | 20 (29.8) | ||
| Association, n (%) | MS Chiro | 18 (25.0) | 18 (85.7) | 0 (0.0) | <.001 |
| MS MT | 22 (30.6) | 0 (0.0) | 22 (44.0) | ||
| Other | 32 (44.4) | 3 (14.3) | 28 (56.0) |
DC, Doctor of Chiropractic; LMT, licensed massage therapist; MS, Master of Science; MT, massage therapist.
There were in total 101 respondents to the survey who were still practicing in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, not everyone answered every question. The percentages reported are valid percentages (ie, based on only those who responded to the specific questions).
Of the 101 practitioners still practicing through the early phase of the pandemic, almost all (94%) reported following guidelines using various forms of personal protective equipment: gloves (25.8%), face mask (59.8%), hand washing and/or sanitizing (89.8%), treatment table and/or surface sanitizing (91.8%), or all of the above (8.3%) (Table 2). DCs were more likely to wear gloves, while LMTs were more likely to wear face masks (P < .001). More LMTs than DCs reported washing or sanitizing their hands between each patient (98.5 MT vs 71.9 DC, P < .001), and 80.7% of DC and 95.4% of LMT respondents reported handwashing at least 20 seconds as recommended by CDC guidelines (P = .02), women significantly more so than men (P < .001). Both professions appeared to heed regulatory guidance for the most part limiting practices to acute care, with less than 20% of practice involving patients without pain being seen reported by 87.5% of DCs and 79.7% of LMTs. Additional COVID-19–related procedures used in practice included sanitizing chairs and/or other surfaces (84.5% of respondents reported cleaning surfaces in addition to treatment tables between all patients) and checking all patient temperatures (62.9%). Procedures used significantly more by LMTs included sign-in and wait in the car (53.2% LMT vs 6.5% DC, P < .001) and prohibiting all visitors (87.7% LMTs vs 9.4% DCs, P < .001). Both DCs (96.9%) and LMTs (89.9%) stated they made referrals for COVID-19 testing or treatment when indicated. Although both professions had a high degree of compliance with sanitizing of treatment tables all of the time, the rate was higher for LMTs than for DCs (96.9% vs 81.3%, P < .001).
Table 2.
Compliance With COVID-19 Guidelines Among Survey Respondents Based on Provider Type, Sex, and Age Group
| Characteristic | Totala101/1257 | DC32 (31.7) | MT69 (68.3) | P Value | Male24 (24.2) | Female75 (75.8) | P Value | Age≤40 y | Age>40 y | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Using PPE at this time | Yes | 94 (94) | 29 (90.6) | 64 (95.5) | .34 | 22 (95.7) | 67 (93.1) | .66 | 30 (96.8) | 58 (92.1) | .38 |
| No | 6 (6) | 3 (9.4) | 3 (4.5) | 1 (4.3) | 5 (6.9) | 1 (3.2) | 5 (7.9) | ||||
| Type of PPE used | Gloves | 25 (25.8) | 11 (34.4) | 14 (21.9) | <.001 | 7 (30.4) | 16 (23.2) | .03 | 9 (30.0) | 13 (21.3) | .644 |
| Face mask | 58 (59.8) | 14 (43.8) | 44 (68.8) | 12 (52.2) | 44 (63.8) | 16 (53.3) | 41 (67.2) | ||||
| Hand washing/sanitizing | 6 (6.2) | 6 (18.8) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (17.4) | 2 (2.9) | 2 (6.7) | 3 (4.9) | ||||
| All | 8 (8.3) | 1 (3.1) | 6 (9.4) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (10.1) | 3 (10.0) | 4 (6.6) | ||||
| How often using PPE | New per patient | 53 (55.8) | 9 (31.0) | 43 (66.2) | .002 | 8 (38.1) | 43 (62.3) | .05 | 17 (58.6) | 33 (54.1) | .69 |
| Not new for each patient | 42 (44.2) | 20 (69.0) | 22 (33.8) | 13 (61.9) | 26 (37.7) | 12 (41.4) | 28 (45.9) | ||||
| Not using any | 9 (9.5) | ||||||||||
| How often sanitize hands | In between each patient | 88 (89.8) | 23 (71.9) | 64 (98.5) | <.001 | 20 (87.0) | 64 (91.4) | .53 | 26 (86.7) | 58 (93.6) | .27 |
| No | 10 (10.2) | 9 (28.1) | 1 (1.5) | 3 (13.0) | 6 (8.6) | 4 (13.3) | 4 (6.5) | ||||
| Percentage of patients with no pain | ≤20 | 80 (82.5) | 28 (87.5) | 51 (79.7) | .34 | 17 (73.9) | 58 (84.1) | .28 | 23 (76.7) | 51 (83.6) | .42 |
| >20 | 17 (17.5) | 4 (12.5) | 13 (20.3) | 6 (26.1) | 11 (15.9) | 7 (23.3) | 10 (16.4) | ||||
| Temperature check | All patients | 61 (62.9) | 20 (64.5) | 40 (61.5) | .78 | 16 (69.6) | 41 (58.6) | .35 | 19 (63.3) | 39 (62.9) | .97 |
| Not all/never | 36 (37.1) | 11 (35.5) | 25 (38.5) | 7 (30.43) | 29 (41.4) | 11 (36.7) | 23 (37.1) | ||||
| Social distancing | Sign in and wait in car | 35 (37.7) | 2 (6.5) | 33 (53.2) | <.001 | 3 (13.0) | 31 (47.0) | .004 | 12 (41.4) | 21 (35.6) | .60 |
| Wait inside | 58 (63.3) | 29 (93.6) | 29 (46.8) | 20 (87.0) | 35 (53.0) | 17 (58.6) | 38 (64.41) | ||||
| Surface sanitizing before/after patients | All the time | 82 (84.5) | 26 (81.3) | 56 (86.2) | .53 | 18 (78.3) | 60 (85.7) | .40 | 25 (83.3) | 53 (85.5) | .79 |
| Not all the time | 15 (15.5) | 6 (18.8) | 9 (13.9) | 5 (21.7) | 10 (14.3) | 5 (16.7) | 9 (14.5) | ||||
| Handwashing | At least 20 s | 87 (90.7) | 25 (80.7) | 62 (95.4) | .02 | 15 (68.2) | 68 (97.1) | <.001 | 28 (93.3) | 55 (90.2) | .62 |
| <20 s | 9 (9.4) | 5 (19.3) | 3 (4.6) | 7 (31.8) | 2 (2.9) | 2 (6.7) | 6 (9.8) | ||||
| Allowing family member with patient | Never | 60 (61.9) | 3 (9.4) | 57 (87.7) | <.001 | 6 (26.1) | 53 (75.7) | <.001 | 16 (53.3) | 42 (67.7) | .18 |
| At least some time | 37 (38.1) | 29 (90.6) | 8 (12.3) | 17 (73.9) | 17 (24.3) | 14 (46.7) | 20 (32.3) | ||||
| Refer patients if need to | Yes | 94 (64.1) | 31 (96.9) | 62 (89.9) | .22 | 23 (95.8) | 67 (89.3) | .34 | 30 (96.8) | 60 (89.6) | .22 |
| No | 52 (35.6) | 1 (3.1) | 7 (10.1) | 1 (4.2) | 8 (10.7) | 1 (3.2) | 7 (10.45) | ||||
| Sanitize treatment tables | All the time | 89 (91.8) | 26 (81.3) | 63 (96.9) | <.001 | 19 (82.6) | 66 (94.3) | .08 | 28 (93.3) | 57 (91.9) | .81 |
| Not all the time | 8 (8.2) | 6 (18.8) | 2 (3.1) | 4 (17.4) | 4 (5.7) | 2 (6.7) | 5 (8.1) |
DC, Doctor of Chiropractic; MT, Massage Therapist; PPE, personal protective equipment.
The percentages reported are valid percentages (ie, based on only those who responded to the specific questions).
Among respondents, 31 DCs and 69 LMTs continued seeing patients through the pandemic (Table 3). The majority of both practitioner groups reported large reductions in patient numbers, but the drop was significantly greater for LMTs (83.1% LMTs vs 62.5% DCs, P = .03) and included 1 in 10 no longer seeing patients because of the pandemic. DCs reported lower numbers of visits, primarily because they reported that fewer of their patients wanted to be seen due to COVID-19 concerns, while LMTs saw fewer patients to better perform infection control between clients. The reduction in patients and/or clients seen was significantly different between the professions (P = .04). The second most cited reason for fewer visits was shared equally by respondents from both professions, which was to reduce their appointment schedule and maintain physical distancing in the office. Both LMTs (70.2%) and DCs (56.3%) reported that COVID-19 had an economic impact on their business, but the pandemic reportedly most affected the income of older practitioners (P = .003).
Table 3.
Perceptions of COVID-19 Impact on Respondents’ Practices Based on Provider Type, Sex, and Age Group
| Characteristic | Totala101/1257 | DC32 (31.7) | MT69 (68.3) | P Value | Male24 (24.2) | Female75 (75.8) | P Value | Age≤40 y | Age>40 y | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| See patients | Yes | 101 (85.6) | 31 (96.9) | 60 (88.2) | .12 | 23 (95.8) | 64 (86.5) | .21 | 30 (96.8) | 56 (84.9) | .08 |
| No | 17 (14.4) | 1 (3.1) | 8 (11.8) | 1 (4.2) | 10 (13.5) | 1 (3.2) | 10 (15) | ||||
| Effect of “shelter in place” order | More patients | 10 (8.9) | 6 (18.8) | 2 (3.1) | .03 | 2 (8.7) | 6 (8.3) | .44 | 2 (6.5) | 5 (7.9) | .68 |
| Same number | 10 (8.9) | 5 (15.6) | 5 (7.7) | 3 (13.0) | 6 (8.3) | 5 (16.1) | 5 (7.9) | ||||
| Fewer patients | 82 (72.6) | 20 (62.5) | 54 (83.1) | 18 (78.3) | 53 (73.6) | 22 (71.0) | 48 (76.2) | ||||
| Not seeing patients | 11 (9.7) | 1 (3.1) | 4 (6.2) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (9.7) | 2 (6.5) | 5 (7.9) | ||||
| Why seeing fewer patients | To maintain social distance | 28 (28.3) | 6 (25.0) | 18 (29.5) | .04 | 6 (28.6) | 17 (27.9) | .22 | 10 (40.0) | 13 (22.8) | .32 |
| Better infection control | 27 (27.3) | 2 (8.3) | 23 (37.7) | 4 (19.1) | 21 (34.4) | 8 (32.0) | 17 (29.8) | ||||
| Fewer patients want to be seen | 34 (34.3) | 13 (54.2) | 16 (26.2) | 8 (38.1) | 18 (29.5) | 6 (24.0) | 20 (35.1) | ||||
| Seeing only those with acute pain | 6 (6.1) | 2 (8.3) | 3 (4.9) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (3.3) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (8.8) | ||||
| Cannot get needed PPE | 4 (4.0) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (4.9) | 1 (4.0) | 2 (3.5) | ||||
| Effect on business | Significantly | 65 (65.7) | 18 (56.3) | 47 (70.2) | .17 | 14 (60.9) | 48 (66.7) | .61 | 13 (43.3) | 48 (75) | .003 |
| Not a lot | 34 (34.3) | 14 (43.7) | 20 (29.8) | 9 (39.1) | 24 (33.3) | 17 (56.7) | 16 (25.0) |
DC, Doctor of Chiropractic; MT, massage therapist; PPE, personal protective equipment.
The percentages reported are valid percentages (ie, based on only those who responded to the specific questions).
Discussion
This study is, to our knowledge, the first to assess both infection control and mitigation procedures used, as well as business impacts reported by licensed DCs and LMTs in Mississippi during the COVID-19 pandemic. As an initial exploration and health education and promotion needs assessment, it may further our understanding of strengths and limitations of current processes and help guide further research into COVID-19 and disease mitigation practices by these manual therapists.
The majority of respondents included in our survey had moderate to high compliance with CDC recommendations and state guidelines,13 although compliance varied by procedure and profession. Hardships included a reduction in numbers of patients seen, especially by LMTs and older therapists, and in limiting numbers of acute care patients seen, by both DCs and LMTs, causing reported economic hardship. Consistent with prompt appropriate public health advocacy and support of CDC guidance by large national chiropractic organizations and boards of licensure for DCs and LMTs in Mississippi,5,6,14 there was high compliance with table sanitizing and hand sanitization procedures between all patients and referrals for COVID-19 testing and treatment when indicated. However, confusion regarding use and lack of full public support for such procedures as masking, the effectiveness and availability of personal protective equipment, and distancing may have undermined practitioner confidence in these and some other mitigation protocols where compliance was only moderate.15, 16, 17
Limitations
This study evaluated practitioners in Mississippi and therefore is limited to this region; thus, studies of other regions would be needed to assess practitioners in other locations. Another limitation was the return rate of only 8%, thus limiting generalizability of our findings to the other manual therapy practitioners in Mississippi. Further, conclusions should be met with caution since results may be biased toward the inclusion of respondents inclined to provide information, possibly even reflecting therapists and chiropractors more likely to follow Federal and Mississippi guidance regarding infection control practices. For example, some practitioners not following guidance may not have completed the survey.
Surveys were sent only by e-mail and not by postal mail, which may have limited the response rate. In a prior study here in Mississippi, we had a response rate of 42%, but that was after distributing surveys at a fall meeting of the state association, followed up with postal surveys.7 There may be a number of older practitioners who do not respond to e-mail surveys. Finally, despite our attempt at developing face validity for our survey, some may not have completed all questions because practitioners were confused by the questions. For example, the question about table sanitization may have been confused with the question regarding sanitization of all surfaces. During some weeks of the pandemic, social distancing and “waiting in cars” may have been in place, but those restrictions removed later, yielding inconsistent survey responses.
Future Research
We suggest that further research is warranted to determine whether health education addressing the rationale behind mitigation procedures, such as hand washing between patients and the use of a face mask when in close quarters with a patient, may improve compliance and further mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in DC and LMT practices in Mississippi and elsewhere. Health education and health promotion aimed at furtherance of efforts to mandate masking of all patients and staff, enforcing social distancing within practices, and teaching these to patients by example may further enhance efforts in infection control in Mississippi. Further studies may also explore the stresses placed on bodywork practices associated with seeing fewer patients and include assessment of the physical and economic burden especially reported by older practitioners. Research into the use of alternative practice methods, such as the implementation of virtual care, may also help these practices to be successful while employing mitigation practices in the future.18
Conclusion
Of those who participated in this study, the majority of DC and LMT respondents had high compliance with most CDC and state recommendations. This assessment of compliance may be used to help guide future health education and promotion research of disease prevention and mitigation and explore the stresses placed on DCs and LMTs associated with seeing fewer patients, such as the physical and economic burdens they face during a pandemic.
Acknowledgments
Funding Sources and Conflicts Of Interest
No funding sources or conflicts of interest were reported for this study.
Contributorship Information
Concept development (provided idea for the research): R.A.L.
Design (planned the methods to generate the results): R.A.L.
Supervision (provided oversight, responsible for organization and implementation, writing of the manuscript): R.A.L.
Data collection/processing (responsible for experiments, patient management, organization, or reporting data): M.W.E., H.N.
Analysis/interpretation (responsible for statistical analysis, evaluation, and presentation of the results): H.N., R.A.L.
Literature search (performed the literature search): R.A.L.
Writing (responsible for writing a substantive part of the manuscript): R.A.L.
Critical review (revised manuscript for intellectual content, this does not relate to spelling and grammar checking): R.A.L., J.K.
Practical Applications.
-
•
We surveyed chiropractic doctors and licensed massage therapists in Mississippi.
-
•
We found high compliance with sanitization recommendations, which suggests state and federal guidance were followed.
-
•
Our findings might be used to identify economic burdens faced by chiropractic doctors and licensed massage therapists in Mississippi during a pandemic.
Alt-text: Unlabelled box
Footnotes
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2022.02.016.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- 1.Mississippi State Department of Health. Stroke awareness and prevention. Available at: https://www.msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/43,0,297,429.html. Accessed 13 February 2021.
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Weekly updates by select demographic and geographic characteristics. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm. Accessed 8 January 2022.
- 3.Mississippi State Department of Health. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Available at: https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,0,420.html. Accessed 8 January 2022.
- 4.Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Guidance on the essential critical infrastructure workforce: ensuring community and national resilience in COVID-19 response. Available at: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CISA-Guidance-on-Essential-Critical-Infrastructure-Workers-1-20-508c.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.
- 5.Guidelines for the Chiropractor's Office. Advisory issued by Mississippi State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Accessed at: www.msbce.ms.gov. Accessed April 1, 2020
- 6.Updated Response to COVID-19. Advisory issued by Mississippi State Board of Massage Therapy. Available at: www.msbmt.ms.gov. Accessed April 15, 2020.
- 7.Leach RA, Cossman RE, Yates JM. Familiarity with and advocacy of Healthy People 2010 goals by Mississippi Chiropractic Association members. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011;34(6):394–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2011.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Evans MW, Jr, Ramcharan M, Floyd R, et al. A proposed protocol for hand and table sanitizing in chiropractic clinics and education institutions. J Chiropr Med. 2009;8(1):38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2008.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Evans MW, Jr, Ramcharan M, Ndetan H, et al. Hand hygiene and treatment table sanitizing in chiropractic teaching institutions: results of an education intervention to increase compliance. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009;32(6):469–476. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cote P, Bussieres A, Cassidy JD, et al. More published full-time researchers, early career researchers, clinician-researchers and graduate students unite to call for actions against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity. Chiropr Man Therap. 2020;28(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12998-020-00334-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lystad RP, Brown BT, Swain MS, Engel RM. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on manual therapy service utilization within the australian private healthcare setting. Healthcare (Basel) 2020;8(4):558. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Johnson CD, Green BN, Konarski-Hart KK, et al. Response of practicing chiropractors during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive report. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2020;43(5):403. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2020.05.001. e1-403.e21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Mississippi State Department of Health. COVID-19 state health officers order for outpatient and inpatient medical services. Available at: https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/index.cfm/23,8647,386,pdf/COVID-19_State_Health_Officer_6_01_20.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2020.
- 14.Johnson CD, Little CS, Sterling TA, Gojkovich S, Boghosian K, Ciolfi MA. Response of chiropractic organizations to the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive report. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2020;43(5):405. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2020.04.001. e1-405.e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Esposito S, Principi N, Leung CC, Migliori GB. Universal use of face masks for success against COVID-19: evidence and implications for prevention policies. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(6) doi: 10.1183/13993003.01260-2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gandhi M, Beyrer C, Goosby E. Masks do more than protect others during COVID-19: reducing the inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to protect the wearer. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(10):3063–3066. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tian Z, Stedman M, Whyte M, SG Anderson, Thomson G, Heald A. Personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection among healthcare workers - what is the evidence? Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(11):e13617. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Green BN, Pence TV, Kwan L, Rokicki-Parashar J. Rapid deployment of chiropractic telehealth at 2 worksite health centers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: observations from the field. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2020;43(5):404. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2020.05.008. e1-404.e10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.