- Joined
- Mar 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,271
- Reaction score
- 7
Anyone catch these articles? PM me with your e-mail address, and I'll send you the full articles:
J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Dec;14(12):730-9.
Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical Schools' support for primary care.
Peters AS, Clark-Chiarelli N, Block SD.
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Helath Care, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To contrast prevailing behaviors and attitudes relative to primary care education and practice in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. DESIGN: Descriptive study using confidential telephone interviews conducted in 1993-94. Analyses compared responses of osteopaths and allopaths, controlling for primary care orientation. SETTING: United States academic health centers. PARTICIPANTS: National stratified probability samples of first-year and fourth-year medical students, postgraduate year 2 residents, and clinical faculty in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools, a sample of allopathic deans, and a census of deans of osteopathic schools (n = 457 osteopaths; n = 2,045 allopaths). MEASUREMENTS: Survey items assessed personal characteristics, students' reasons for entering medicine, learners' primary care educational experiences, community support for primary care, and attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of primary care physicians. MAIN RESULTS: Primary care physicians composed a larger fraction of the faculty in osteopathic schools than in allopathic schools. Members of the osteopathic community were significantly more likely than their allopathic peers to describe themselves as socioemotionally oriented rather than technoscientifically oriented. Osteopathic learners were more likely than allopathic learners to have educational experiences in primary care venues and with primary care faculty, and to receive encouragement from faculty, including specialists, to enter primary care. Attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of prJgiary care physicians were consistently negative in both communities. Differences between communities were sustained after controlling for primary care orientation. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with allopathic schools, the cultural practices and educational structures in osteopathic medical schools better support the production of primary care physicians. However, there is a lack of alignment between attitudes and practices in the osteopathic community.
---------------
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Dec;55(12):2141-8.
Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts.
Johnson SM, Kurtz ME.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316, USA. [email protected]
Data were gathered through a random national mail survey of 3000 US osteopathic physicians. Nine hundred and fifty-five questionnaires were usable for analysis. Through open-ended questions, osteopathic physicians identified philosophic and practice differences that distinguished them from their allopathic counterparts, and whether they believed the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of the osteopathic profession, was appropriate in their specialty. Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the question regarding philosophic differences answered positively, and 41 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that holistic medicine was the most distinguishing characteristic of their profession. In response to the question on practice differences, 59 percent of the respondents believed they practiced differently from allopathic physicians, and 72 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that the osteopathic approach to treatment was a primary distinguishing feature, mainly incorporating the application of OMT, a caring doctor-patient relationship, and a hands-on style. More respondents who specialized in osteopathic manipulative medicine and family practice perceived differences between them and their allopathic counterparts than did other practitioners. Almost all respondents believed OMT was an efficacious treatment, but 19 percent of all respondents felt use of OMT was inappropriate in their specialty. Thirty-one percent of the pediatricians and 38 percent of the non-primary care specialists shared this view. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents had a self-identification as osteopathic physicians, but less than half felt their patients identified them as such. When responses are considered in the context of all survey respondents (versus only those who provided open-ended responses) not a single philosophic concept or resultant practice behavior had concurrence from more than a third of the respondents as distinguishing osteopathic from allopathic medicine. Rank and file osteopathic practitioners seem to be struggling for a legitimate professional identification. The outcome of this struggle is bound to have an impact on health care delivery in the US.
----------------
Acad Med. 2001 Aug;76(8):821-8.
Diminished use of osteopathic manipulative treatment and its impact on the uniqueness of the osteopathic profession.
Johnson SM, Kurtz ME.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824-1316, USA.
PURPOSE: To determine whether osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of osteopathic medicine, is becoming a "lost art" in the profession, and whether the long-term evolution of osteopathic medicine into mainstream medicine and particularly specialization has had a similar impact on the use of OMT by family practitioners and specialists. METHOD: In April 1998, a two-page questionnaire was mailed to 3,000 randomly selected osteopathic physicians in the United States to assess factors affecting their use of OMT. Descriptive statistics, linear regression analyses, and analysis of variance techniques were used to test for differences. RESULTS: The response rate was 33.2%. Over 50% of the responding osteopathic physicians used OMT on less than 5% of their patients, and analysis of variance revealed OMT use was significantly affected by practice type, graduation date, and family physicians versus specialists. For specialists, 58% of the variance regression was attributed to barriers to use, practice protocol, attitudes, and training, whereas for family physicians, 43% of the variance regression was attributed to barriers to use, practice protocol, and attitudes. More important, the eventual level of OMT use was related to whether postgraduate training had been undertaken in osteopathic, allopathic, or mixed staff facilities, particularly for osteopathic specialists. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the assertion that OMT is becoming a lost art among osteopathic practitioners. Osteopathic as well as allopathic medical educators and policymakers should address the impact of the diminished use of OMT on both U.S. health care and the unique identifying practices associated with the osteopathic profession.
J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Dec;14(12):730-9.
Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical Schools' support for primary care.
Peters AS, Clark-Chiarelli N, Block SD.
Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Helath Care, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To contrast prevailing behaviors and attitudes relative to primary care education and practice in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. DESIGN: Descriptive study using confidential telephone interviews conducted in 1993-94. Analyses compared responses of osteopaths and allopaths, controlling for primary care orientation. SETTING: United States academic health centers. PARTICIPANTS: National stratified probability samples of first-year and fourth-year medical students, postgraduate year 2 residents, and clinical faculty in osteopathic and allopathic medical schools, a sample of allopathic deans, and a census of deans of osteopathic schools (n = 457 osteopaths; n = 2,045 allopaths). MEASUREMENTS: Survey items assessed personal characteristics, students' reasons for entering medicine, learners' primary care educational experiences, community support for primary care, and attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of primary care physicians. MAIN RESULTS: Primary care physicians composed a larger fraction of the faculty in osteopathic schools than in allopathic schools. Members of the osteopathic community were significantly more likely than their allopathic peers to describe themselves as socioemotionally oriented rather than technoscientifically oriented. Osteopathic learners were more likely than allopathic learners to have educational experiences in primary care venues and with primary care faculty, and to receive encouragement from faculty, including specialists, to enter primary care. Attitudes toward the clinical and academic competence of prJgiary care physicians were consistently negative in both communities. Differences between communities were sustained after controlling for primary care orientation. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with allopathic schools, the cultural practices and educational structures in osteopathic medical schools better support the production of primary care physicians. However, there is a lack of alignment between attitudes and practices in the osteopathic community.
---------------
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Dec;55(12):2141-8.
Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts.
Johnson SM, Kurtz ME.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316, USA. [email protected]
Data were gathered through a random national mail survey of 3000 US osteopathic physicians. Nine hundred and fifty-five questionnaires were usable for analysis. Through open-ended questions, osteopathic physicians identified philosophic and practice differences that distinguished them from their allopathic counterparts, and whether they believed the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of the osteopathic profession, was appropriate in their specialty. Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the question regarding philosophic differences answered positively, and 41 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that holistic medicine was the most distinguishing characteristic of their profession. In response to the question on practice differences, 59 percent of the respondents believed they practiced differently from allopathic physicians, and 72 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that the osteopathic approach to treatment was a primary distinguishing feature, mainly incorporating the application of OMT, a caring doctor-patient relationship, and a hands-on style. More respondents who specialized in osteopathic manipulative medicine and family practice perceived differences between them and their allopathic counterparts than did other practitioners. Almost all respondents believed OMT was an efficacious treatment, but 19 percent of all respondents felt use of OMT was inappropriate in their specialty. Thirty-one percent of the pediatricians and 38 percent of the non-primary care specialists shared this view. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents had a self-identification as osteopathic physicians, but less than half felt their patients identified them as such. When responses are considered in the context of all survey respondents (versus only those who provided open-ended responses) not a single philosophic concept or resultant practice behavior had concurrence from more than a third of the respondents as distinguishing osteopathic from allopathic medicine. Rank and file osteopathic practitioners seem to be struggling for a legitimate professional identification. The outcome of this struggle is bound to have an impact on health care delivery in the US.
----------------
Acad Med. 2001 Aug;76(8):821-8.
Diminished use of osteopathic manipulative treatment and its impact on the uniqueness of the osteopathic profession.
Johnson SM, Kurtz ME.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824-1316, USA.
PURPOSE: To determine whether osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of osteopathic medicine, is becoming a "lost art" in the profession, and whether the long-term evolution of osteopathic medicine into mainstream medicine and particularly specialization has had a similar impact on the use of OMT by family practitioners and specialists. METHOD: In April 1998, a two-page questionnaire was mailed to 3,000 randomly selected osteopathic physicians in the United States to assess factors affecting their use of OMT. Descriptive statistics, linear regression analyses, and analysis of variance techniques were used to test for differences. RESULTS: The response rate was 33.2%. Over 50% of the responding osteopathic physicians used OMT on less than 5% of their patients, and analysis of variance revealed OMT use was significantly affected by practice type, graduation date, and family physicians versus specialists. For specialists, 58% of the variance regression was attributed to barriers to use, practice protocol, attitudes, and training, whereas for family physicians, 43% of the variance regression was attributed to barriers to use, practice protocol, and attitudes. More important, the eventual level of OMT use was related to whether postgraduate training had been undertaken in osteopathic, allopathic, or mixed staff facilities, particularly for osteopathic specialists. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the assertion that OMT is becoming a lost art among osteopathic practitioners. Osteopathic as well as allopathic medical educators and policymakers should address the impact of the diminished use of OMT on both U.S. health care and the unique identifying practices associated with the osteopathic profession.
