A pilot study to explore the extent to which UK osteopaths believe they can help patients with conditions that are perceived as being normally diagnosed and treated by orthodox medicine

Geraldine Fahy                                                                                Supervisor: Robin Kirk

ABSTRACT

Background: With the advent of statutory regulation (Osteopaths Act 1993) and an emphasis on evidence-based research, the scope of osteopathy has been changing but exactly how is unclear.

Objective: This pilot study was designed to explore the scope of osteopathy, in particular the extent to which UK osteopaths believe they can help patients with conditions that are perceived as being normally diagnosed and treated by orthodox medicine. Comparison between osteopaths that incorporate different elements of osteopathy into their practice (e.g. structural, visceral, cranial) was also investigated.

Methods:  A one-shot postal questionnaire was sent to 300 registered UK osteopaths. 34 conditions were selected for inclusion in the study based on a literature review of the existing evidence of the efficacy of osteopathic intervention and a desk research exercise looking at the websites of current UK osteopaths. Data groups were investigated using an unpaired t-test (welch corrected) analysis. Content analysis on open-ended questions was also performed.

Results: The response rate was 29% (87 responses). There was a high level of belief among the survey population that osteopathy can help with a small number of conditions usually diagnosed and treated by orthodox medicine, namely osteoarthritis (97.7%), asthma (96.5%), ankylosing spondylitis (85%), pregnancy (84%), IBS (83.9%), colic (77%) and glue ear (76%). There was a significant difference (P=0.0012) in the mean number of conditions that can be helped with osteopathy between those osteopaths that practice ‘structural only’ and those that practice ‘structural, visceral, cranial and other’.  There also appeared to be a low level of confidence among the survey population in advising patients on medication.

 

Conclusion: Respondents reported a strong belief and actual success in helping patients to cope with particular conditions normally perceived as being diagnosed and treated by orthodox medicine, in particular osteoarthritis, asthma, ankylosing spondylitis, pregnancy, IBS, colic and glue ear. In light of this there is a case for a review of the interface between osteopathy and orthodox medicine in the management of these conditions with the potential benefits being reduced need for medication and reduced pressure on GP’s time especially for chronic conditions. The profession would benefit from increased promotion in relation to all of the various approaches to osteopathy including visceral and cranial. And, more training and guidance for practicing osteopaths in relation to medication would also help. However, this was a pilot study and these findings need to be explored on a wider scale in a more representative sample.