This qualitative study showed that chiropractors believe that chiropractic care can promote improved health and quality of life. However, in everyday practice, chiropractors are unsure how to communicate this and how best to assess it [1].

This study captured chiropractors’ perspectives on the quality of life construct using a qualitative descriptive methodology. Chiropractors were also asked to evaluate four quality of life patient-reported outcome measure instruments to assess their usefulness in everyday practice. From the data, three main themes were identified. It was found that chiropractors commonly perceive that patients have misconceptions about how chiropractic can affect quality of life. Chiropractors also lack clarity in how to communicate quality of life and its related concepts to establish a meaningful patient interaction. Finally, there is uncertainty in how and when to measure quality of life, which appears to impact how chiropractors discuss and assess quality of life in practice.

The concept of ‘quality of life’ is broad and multi-faceted, with no universally agreed definition [2]–[4] and chiropractic care may address quality of life through a wellness approach to patient care [5]–[8]. The findings from this group of New Zealand chiropractors demonstrated that the quality of life construct is relevant to the chiropractic profession, however challenges exist with communication and clinical usability. Future research oriented towards quality of life communication and evaluation may enhance the chiropractor’s ability to confidently articulate this concept. If you want to read more about the study visit https://www.jmptonline.org/article/S0161-4754(18)30037-X/fulltext

This research was a joint effort between researchers from the CCR and Auckland University of Technology. We’re particularly grateful to the Hamblin Trust for funding this study.

References

  1. T. Glucina, C. Krägeloh, and P. Farvid, “Chiropractors’ Perspectives on the Meaning and Assessment of Quality of Life within their Practice: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.,” J. Manip. Physiol. Ther., 2019.
  2. M. P. Dijkers, “Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: A review of research approaches and findings,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., vol. 85, no. 4 Suppl 2, p. S21, 2004.
  3. A. A. Küçükdeveci, A. Tennant, G. Grimby, and F. Franchignoni, “Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: An educational review,” J. Rehabil. Med., vol. 43, no. 8, p. 661, 2011.
  4. C. Macduff, “Respondent-generated quality of life measures: Useful tools for nursing or more fool’s gold?,” J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 375–382, 2000.
  5. C. Hawk, “When worldviews collide: Maintaining a vitalistic perspective in chiropractic in the postmodern era,” J Chiropr Humanit, vol. 12, pp. 2–7, 2005.
  6. C. Jolliot, “Vital force: An everlasting notion for the original stance of chiropractic ,” Chiropr. J. Aust., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 97–104, 2006.
  7. L. Parkinson, D. Sibbritt, P. Bolton, J. van Rotterdam, and I. Villadsen, “Well-being outcomes of chiropractic intervention for lower back pain: a systematic review,” Clin Rheumatol, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 167–180, 2013.
  8. S. A. Senzon, “Constructing a philosophy of chiropractic: Evolving worldviews and postmodern core,” J. Chiropr. Humanit., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–63, 2011.