↓ Skip to main content

Considerations for practice-based research: a cross-sectional survey of chiropractic, acupuncture and massage practices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Considerations for practice-based research: a cross-sectional survey of chiropractic, acupuncture and massage practices
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12906-015-0659-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lysbeth Floden, Amy Howerter, Eva Matthews, Mark Nichter, James K Cunningham, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Judith S Gordon, Myra L Muramoto

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has steadily increased globally over the past two decades and is increasingly playing a role in the healthcare system in the United States. CAM practice-based effectiveness research requires an understanding of the settings in which CAM practitioners provide services. This paper describes and quantifies practice environment characteristics for a cross-sectional sample of doctors of chiropractic (DCs), licensed acupuncturists (LAcs), and licensed massage therapists (LMTs) in the United States. Using a cross-sectional telephone survey of DCs (n = 32), LAcs (n = 70), and LMTs (n = 184) in the Tucson, AZ metropolitan area, we collected data about each location where practitioners work, as well as measures on practitioner and practice characteristics including: patient volume, number of locations where practitioners worked, CAM practitioner types working at each location, and business models of practice. The majority of practitioners reported having one practice location (93.8% of DCs, 80% of LAcs and 59.8% of LMTs) where they treat patients. Patient volume/week was related to practitioner type; DCs saw 83.13 (SD = 49.29) patients/week, LAcs saw 22.29 (SD = 16.88) patients/week, and LMTs saw 14.21 (SD =10.25) patients per week. Practitioners completed surveys for N = 388 practice locations. Many CAM practices were found to be multidisciplinary and/or have more than one practitioner: 9/35 (25.7%) chiropractic practices, 24/87 (27.6%) acupuncture practices, and 141/266 (53.0%) massage practices. Practice business models across CAM practitioner types were heterogeneous, e.g. sole proprietor, employee, partner, and independent contractor. CAM practices vary across and within disciplines in ways that can significantly impact design and implementation of practice-based research. CAM research and intervention programs need to be mindful of the heterogeneity of CAM practices in order to create appropriate interventions, study designs, and implementation plans.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#14,222,419
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,685
of 3,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,795
of 264,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#40
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.