Skip to main content

Table 1 The representativeness of twenty-six studies on the use of primary prevention in chiropractic practice

From: Primary prevention in chiropractic practice: a systematic review

Articles

1st author

Yr of publication

Country of study

Study design in relation to our objectives

i) data collected by DC

ii) data collected by patients/

guardians

Target population defined

(1 pt)

i) DC

ii) patients/guardians

Group(s) who provided the data were written in bold

Study sample (s) described

(at least age, sex, geographic distribution, or professional background)

(1 pt)

i) DC

ii) patients/guardians

Sampling method

-whole target population (1 pt)

-random selection (1 pt)

-consecutive sample (1 pt)

-convenience sample (0 pt)

i) DC

ii) patients/guardians

Response rate provided or possible to calculate and if provided > 10% (1 pt)

i) DC

ii) patients/guardians

If less than 80% response, was there a resp/non-resp comparison?

(1 pt)

i) DC

ii) patients/guardians

Scores

Walker (2000) [33]

USA

i) DC report on their use of PP

ii)/

i) American DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 24%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

Hawk (2001) [22]

Australia

Canada

USA

i) DC report their use of PP and recruited patients to participate in survey

ii) Patients report on RfC

i) DC in practice-based research network

(1 pt)

ii) DC’s patients

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) Consecutive sampling

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) In a subsample response rate was estimated to be between 40 and 95%

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

6/10

Hawk (2004) [17]

USA

i) DC report on their use of PP and opinions on PP

ii)/

i) American DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 27%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

McDonald (2004) [34]

Mexico

USA

Canada

i) DC report on their opinions on PP

ii)/

i) DC from mainly North America

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 63%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

5/5

Mootz (2005) [38]

USA

i) DC collected data on their patients' RfC

ii)/

i) American DC from Arizona and Massachusetts

(1 pt)

ii) DC's patients

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) Consecutive sampling

(1 pt)

i) 68% (Arizona)

76% (Massachusetts)

(1 pt)

ii) 58% (Arizona)

67% (Massachusetts)

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

10/10

Alcantara (2008) [23]

Several countries

i) DC collected data on their patients' RfC and recruited patients to participate in survey

ii) Patients report on RfC

i) DC in practice-based pediatric research network

(1 pt)

ii) Parents of DC's patients

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) Not reported

(0 pt)

i) 2%

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

3/10

Blum (2008) [18]

Australia

Europe

USA

i) DC recruited patients to participate in survey

ii) Patients report on RfC

i) DC specialized in SOT and known to use wellness

(1 pt)

ii) DC's patients

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) Consecutive sample

(1 pt)

i) 100%

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

6/10

Malmqvist (2008) [35]

Finland

i) DC report on their use of PP ii)/

i) DC from Finland

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 88%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

5/5

Alcantara (2009) [24]

Several countries

i) DC report on patients’ RfC

ii) Patients report on RfC

i) DC in practice-based pediatric research invited the patients and were also surveyed

(1 pt)

ii) Parents of DC's patients (1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) Not reported

(0 pt)

i) 1%

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

3/10

Hestbaek (2009) [37]

Denmark

i) DC recruited patients to participate in survey

ii) Patients report on RfC

i) Danish DC treating pediatric patients

(1 pt)

ii) Pediatric patients after their 1st visit

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) Consecutive sample of new patients

(1 pt)

i) 84%

(1 pt)

ii) No

probably > 50%

(0 pt)

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

ii) Yes?

(1 pt)

8/10

Alcantara (2010) [25]

Several countries

i) DC report on their use of PP and patients’ RfC

ii)/

i) DC in practice-based pediatric research network

(1 pt)

ii) Pediatric patients

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) Not reported

(0 pt)

i) 37%

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

4/10

Leach (2011) [28]

USA

i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP ii)/

i) DC in state of Mississippi

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 43%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

Marchand (2012) [26]

Several

European countries

i) DC report on their use of PP and collect data on their patients' RfC

ii)/

i) DC from several European countries

(1 pt)

ii) DC's patients

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) Not reported

(0 pt)

i) 23%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

5/8

French (2013) [39]

Australia

i) DC collect data on their patients' RfC

ii)/

i) Australian DC

(1 pt)

ii) Patients from these DC

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) Consecutive sample

(1 pt)

i) 33%

(1 pt)

ii) 86%

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

9/10

Stuber (2013) [19]

Canada

i) DC report on their use of PP

ii)/

i) DC from the province of Saskatchewan

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 45%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

5/5

Brown (2014) [40]

Australia

i) DC recruit patients to participate in survey

ii) Patients report on their opinions on PP

i) Australian chiropractic clinics

(1 pt)

ii) Adult patients from these clinics

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) Consecutive sample

(1 pt)

i) 96%

(1 pt)

ii) 24%

(1 pt)

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

ii) No

(1 pt)

9/10

McGregor (2014) [20]

Canada

i) DC report on their opinions on PP

ii)/

i) English speaking Canadian DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 68%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

Bussières (2015) [27]

Canada

i) DC report on their opinions on PP

ii)/

i) Canadian DC with a valid email address

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) IR

i) 8%

(0 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

2/5

Blanchette (2015) [36]

Canada

i) DC report on their opinions on PP

ii)/

i) Canadian DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Whole population

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 39%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

5/5

Fikar (2015) [31]

UK

i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP

ii)/

i) English DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 4 Whole populations

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 21%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

Glithro (2015) [29]

UK

i) DC report on their opinions on PP and use of PP

ii)/

i) English DC

including some students

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Random selection

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 30%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

Schneider (2015) [30]

USA

i) DC report on their opinions on PP

ii)/

i) American DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Convenience sample

(0 pt)

ii) IR

i) maximum 4%

(0 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

2/5

Allen- Unhammer (2016) [21]

Norway

(Part1 – register study)

i) DC report on their patients’ RfC in NHS database

ii)/

i) Norwegian DC

(1 pt)

ii) Paediatric patients from these DC

(1 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Whole target population

(1 pt)

ii) Whole target population

(1 pt)

i) NA (register data)

Probably 100%

(1 pt)

ii) NA (register data)

Probably 100%

(1 pt)

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

i) NA because >80%

(1 pt)

9/10

Allen- Unhammer (2016) [21]

Norway

(Part 2 – survey)

i) DC recruit paediatric patients

ii) patients/parents report on RfC

i) Norwegian DC

(1 pt)

ii) Paediatric patients from these DC

(1 pt)

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) Yes

(1 pt)

i) Whole target population

(1 pt)

ii) Convenience sample from small group of participating DC

(0 pt)

i) 15%

(1 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) No

(0 pt)

6/10

Pohlman (2016) [41]

Several Countries

i) DC report on their patients’ RfC

ii)/

i) DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 3 whole populations

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 29%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

5/5

Adams (2017) [32]

Australia

i) DC report on their use of PP

ii)/

i) Australian DC

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) yes

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) Whole target population

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) 43%

(1 pt)

ii) IR

i) No

(0 pt)

ii) IR

4/5

  1. PP Primary Prevention, DC chiropractors, IR irrelevant, NA Not Applicable
  2. RfC Reason for Consulting, NHS National Health Service
Back to article page

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X