The Five Eras of Chiropractic & the future of chiropractic as seen through the eyes of a participant observer

Abstract

Chiropractic has endured a turbulent history, marked by tremendous advances in areas such as education and licensing while marred by interprofessional conflict and a poor public image. The prolonged interprofessional conflict was instrumental in shaping the culture of chiropractic. These obstacles have long-since been removed although there are lingering effects from them.This article examines the chiropractic profession's history by dividing it into five Eras and suggests that there are three options available for the future of the profession. One: maintaining the status quo. Two: uniting under an evidence based scientific approach as partners in the health care delivery system that has buried the "one-cause, one-cure" sacred cow. The steps required to achieve this outcome are outlined. Three: openly dividing the profession into evidence based practitioners and subluxation based practitioners. Adopting this option would allow each branch of the profession to move forward in the health care delivery system unhindered by the other.It is unclear which option the profession will choose and whether the profession is mature enough to follow option two remains to be seen. What is evident is that the time to act is now.

The STarT back tool in chiropractic practice: a narrative review

“…Four of the 7 studies examined aspects of the SBT’s construct validity (Kongsted et al [17], Field and Newell [18], Irgens et al [19], and Newell et al [20]). Four of the studies evaluated the SBT’s prognostic capacity (Field and Newell [18], Newell et al [20], Kongsted et al [9], and Morso et al [21]).…”

“…Four of the 7 studies examined aspects of the SBT’s construct validity (Kongsted et al [17], Field and Newell [18], Irgens et al [19], and Newell et al [20]). Four of the studies evaluated the SBT’s prognostic capacity (Field and Newell [18], Newell et al [20], Kongsted et al [9], and Morso et al [21]). Two used a cross sectional study design (Kongsted et al[17], Irgens et al [19]), 4 used a prospective cohort design (Field and Newell [18], Newell et al [20], Field and Newell [22], and Kongsted et al [9]) and 1 was a secondary analysis (Morso et al [21]).…”

“…Two used a cross sectional study design (Kongsted et al[17], Irgens et al [19]), 4 used a prospective cohort design (Field and Newell [18], Newell et al [20], Field and Newell [22], and Kongsted et al [9]) and 1 was a secondary analysis (Morso et al [21]).…”

“…In the Field and Newell [18] study, baseline SBT score correlated positively with baseline pain score (Numerical Rating Scale and Bournemouth Questionnaire); the low risk group had the lowest pain and disability at baseline while the high-risk group had the highest. However, the outcome differences between the 3 risk groups receiving chiropractic care disappeared by 30 days follow up.…”

The new chiropractic

“…The “bad” side of the profession has been the subject of much controversy, publicity and indeed previous F.G. Roberts addresses [5, 6]. Table 1 lists some of these “bad” practices that continue to cause significant reputational damage to the profession.…”