Building an osteopathic research culture

Beverly, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1515/jom-2021-0055

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent data show that only 18.6% of COMs [ 18 ], compared with 71.0% of USMDs [ 19 ], offer dual-degree PhD programs. In light of the obstacles that COMs face in providing research opportunities to OMSs [ 4 , 7 ], voluntary SRPs may be more appropriate than either curricular research requirements or PhD programs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The declining proportion of physician-scientists provides another reason to provide medical students with research opportunities [ 2 ], and a meta-analysis of three studies showed that research exposure in medical school increased medical students’ interest in conducting research in their future careers [ 3 ]. More specific to colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs), the adoption of a single accreditation system for all medical students in the United States, which was implemented in 2020, places osteopathic medical students (OMSs) from COMs in direct competition with medical students from US allopathic medical schools (USMD) for residencies [ 4 ]. Because residency programs often consider publications and research experience to be important credentials when selecting residencies, it is more important than ever that COMs provide research opportunities to their OMSs [ 5 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, COMs may offer structured research programs (SRPs), which we define as optional, extracurricular programs that allow OMSs to conduct research under mentors. Developing SRPs may be challenging for faculty and staff at COMs, owing to COMs’ relative lack of research infrastructure [ 4 , 7 ]. Descriptive examples of SRPs may serve as models for individuals who wish to develop an SRP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Medical student research opportunities: a survey of osteopathic medical schools in the United States

Hamby

Wilson

Bui

et al. 2022

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context It is important for colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) to provide opportunities for osteopathic medical students (OMSs) to conduct research under the guidance of professional researchers. However, COMs historically lag behind allopathic medical schools in research offerings for medical students. The literature would benefit from a synopsis of research opportunities for OMSs at COMs. Objectives This study aims to assess the availability of research opportunities currently offered to OMSs and to identify structured research programs (SRPs) to provide data that may help COMs expand such opportunities. Methods Two online surveys were developed. The General Survey asked about general research opportunities, research requirements, and SRPs, which we define as optional, intramural, and mentored research programs. The follow-up SRP Survey sought to understand the history, funding, and organizational structure of SRPs. Between February and June 2021, the General and SRP Surveys were sent to all COMs in the United States. Response data were analyzed descriptively. Results Responses were received from 32 (84.2%) of 38 COMs. Nearly all COMs offered research symposia, offered third- or fourth-year research elective rotations, and provided some form of funding for OMSs to participate in research. Fourteen (43.8%) COMs had mandatory research requirements. Twenty COMs (62.5%) offered 31 SRPs, and surveys were completed for 25 (80.6%) SRPs. SRPs were founded a median (range) of 7 (1–43) years prior and accommodated 20 (4–50) OMSs annually. Among the responding SRPs, 12.0% had external funding, 96.0% required applications, 50.0% interviewed applicants prior to acceptance into the program, 72.0% required OMSs to identify their own mentors, 68.0% offered stipends to OMSs, 28.0% offered course credits, 96.0% had clinical research opportunities, and 68.0% offered research-oriented didactics. In 84.0% of SRPs, OMSs worked predominantly in the summer after OMS-I; for these SRPs, students had 4–10 weeks of dedicated time for participation in research. Conclusions Findings from our surveys provide a synopsis of the research opportunities currently provided by COMs in the United States. Our data demonstrated wide variability of research opportunities among COMs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Medical student research opportunities: a survey of osteopathic medical schools in the United States

Hamby

Wilson

Bui

et al. 2022

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, it seems somewhat questionable to develop osteopathic psychiatry due to regulatory differences between countries and the presumed incompetence of osteopaths to manage mental disorders. Hence, it might be best to discuss (1) a psychologically informed osteopathic practice addressing comorbid psychological factors in patients with 2 It is notable that the osteopathic profession did not prioritize research in the past and that currently steps are being taken to build an osteopathic research culture (Beverly, 2021), which is reflected by the recent establishment of research networks (Steel et al, 2020b) and the exponential growth in publication output during the past decades (Morin and Gaboury, 2021). physical disorders and (2) a collaborative treatment approach combining mind-based (psychotherapy) and adjuvant bodybased (osteopathy) approaches in the treatment of mental disorders.…”

Section: Osteopathymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 It is notable that the osteopathic profession did not prioritize research in the past and that currently steps are being taken to build an osteopathic research culture ( Beverly, 2021 ), which is reflected by the recent establishment of research networks ( Steel et al, 2020b ) and the exponential growth in publication output during the past decades ( Morin and Gaboury, 2021 ). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteopathy and Mental Health: An Embodied, Predictive, and Interoceptive Framework

Bohlen¹,

Shaw

Cerritelli

et al. 2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, mental and musculoskeletal disorders present with high prevalence, disease burden, and comorbidity. In order to improve the quality of care for patients with persistent physical and comorbid mental health conditions, person-centered care approaches addressing psychosocial factors are currently advocated. Central to successful person-centered care is a multidisciplinary collaboration between mental health and musculoskeletal specialists underpinned by a robust therapeutic alliance. Such a collaborative approach might be found in osteopathy, which is typically utilized to treat patients with musculoskeletal disorders but may arguably also benefit mental health outcomes. However, research and practice exploring the reputed effect of osteopathy on patients with mental health problems lack a robust framework. In this hypothesis and theory article, we build upon research from embodied cognition, predictive coding, interoception, and osteopathy to propose an embodied, predictive and interoceptive framework that underpins osteopathic person-centered care for individuals with persistent physical and comorbid mental health problems. Based on the premise that, for example, chronic pain and comorbid depression are underlined by overly precise predictions or imprecise sensory information, we hypothesize that osteopathic treatment may generate strong interoceptive prediction errors that update the generative model underpinning the experience of pain and depression. Thus, physical and mental symptoms may be reduced through active and perceptual inference. We discuss how these theoretical perspectives can inform future research into osteopathy and mental health to reduce the burden of comorbid psychological factors in patients with persistent physical symptoms and support person-centered multidisciplinary care in mental health.

show abstract

Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification?

Shepard

Wise

Johnson

et al. 2021

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Considering the substantial increase in research funding in the field of urology, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. Systematic reviews (SRs) compile available evidence regarding a clinical question into a single critical resource. If properly utilized, SRs can help minimize redundant studies, focus attention to unsubstantiated treatments, and reduce research waste. Objectives To appraise the use of SRs as justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in high impact urology journals, and to report the ways SRs were incorporated into RCT manuscripts published in the top four urology journals by h5 index. Methods On December 13, 2019, a PubMed search was conducted for RCTs published in the top four urology journals according to the Google Scholar h5-index: European Urology, BJU International, The Journal of Urology, and Urology. For an article to be eligible for inclusion in this study, it must have been a full length RCT, published between November 30, 2014, and November 30, 2019 in one of the identified journals, reported only human subjects, and been accessible in English. The following data points were extracted independently by select investigators from each included RCT: manuscript title, year of publication, journal title, type of intervention (drug, medical device, procedure, other), funding source (government, hospital/university, industry, mixed) type of trial (parallel groups, crossover, cluster), and total number of participants reported in each RCT. The included RCTs were searched for reference to an SR, which was then recorded as “yes – verbatim,” “yes – inferred,” or “not used as justification” and the location in the manuscript where the SR was cited was recorded. Results Of the 566 articles retrieved, 276 were included. Overall, 150 (54.3%) RCTs cited an SR as either verbatim (108; 39.1%) or inferred (42; 15.2%) trial justification, while 126 (45.7%) did not use an SR for RCT justification. Of those 126, 107 (84.9%) RCTs did not cite an SR to any extent. A significant association was noted between verbatim justification and type of intervention (x 2=20.23, p=0.017), with 18 of 31 (58.1%) “other” interventions (i.e. psychosocial intervention, exercise programs, and online therapy) having an SR cited as verbatim justification. Only 39 of 118 (33.1%) pharmaceutical trials referenced an SR as verbatim justification. Of 403 systematic review citations, 205 (50.8%) appeared in the Discussion section, while 15 (3.7%) were in the Methods section. Conclusions We found that RCTs published in four high impact urology journals inconsistently referenced an SR as justification and 39.1% of our entire sample did not reference an SR at all. These findings indicate that a divide exists between the instruction and implementation of evidence based medicine in the field of urology concerning RCTs published in the top four journals. Educating clinicians and researchers on the use of SR as justification for RCTs in urology may reduce research waste and increase the quality of RCTs in the field.

show abstract

Building an osteopathic research culture

Cited by 9 publications

References 7 publications

Medical student research opportunities: a survey of osteopathic medical schools in the United States

Medical student research opportunities: a survey of osteopathic medical schools in the United States

Osteopathy and Mental Health: An Embodied, Predictive, and Interoceptive Framework

Are randomized controlled trials in urology being conducted with justification?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About