The Use of Exercise Prescription in Australian Osteopathy Practice: Secondary Analysis of a Nationally Representative Sample of the Profession.

Introduction: Exercise is beneficial for improving general health, wellbeing, and specific medical conditions. In musculoskeletal conditions such as chronic low back and neck pain, prescribed exercise has been found to be moderately effective in decreasing pain and improving function. Osteopaths are primary contact health professionals who manage predominantly musculoskeletal complaints. This work presents a secondary data analysis of the Australian osteopathy practice-based research network and profiles the characteristics of osteopaths who often use exercise prescription in patient care. Methodology. Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of 992 osteopaths was registered with the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network, an Australian practice-based research network. Demographics, practice, and treatment characteristics of Australian osteopaths who "often" use exercise prescription in patient care were examined. Results: Seven-hundred and thirty-three Australian osteopaths (74%) indicated that they use exercise prescription "often" in patient care. Australian osteopaths who often use exercise prescription are more likely to be colocated with another osteopath (ORa 1.54) and send referrals to an exercise physiologist (ORa 1.94) and a specialist medical practitioner (ORa 1.72). Those osteopaths who often used exercise prescription were also more likely to discuss physical activity (ORa 5.61) and nutrition (ORa 1.90). Australian osteopaths who use exercise prescription often were more likely to treat patients with sports injuries (ORa 2.43) and use soft tissue techniques (ORa 1.92), trigger point techniques (ORa 2.72), and sports taping (ORa 1.78). Conclusion: Osteopaths who utilise exercise prescription were more likely to discuss physical activity, diet, and nutrition and utilise referral networks with specialist medical practitioners and exercise physiologists. Australian osteopaths who often use exercise prescriptions were also more likely to treat patients with sport injury. The results suggest that most Australian osteopaths use exercise prescription and have referral networks with other health professionals for patient management. Further work is required to explore the type of exercise prescription used and for what conditions.

DO seniors and IMGs have lower match probabilities than MD seniors after adjusting for specialty choice and USMLE Step 1 score.

CONTEXT: It is unknown if US residency applicants of different educational backgrounds (US allopathic [MD], Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO], and international medical graduates [IMG]) but comparable academic performance have similar match success. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare match probabilities between applicant types after adjusting for specialty choice and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of published data in National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reports from 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 for US MD seniors, DO seniors, and IMGs (US citizens and non-US citizens). We examined the 10 specialties with the most available spots in 2022. Average marginal effects from a multiple variable logistic regression model were utilized to estimate each non-MD senior applicant type's probability of matching into their preferred specialty compared to MD seniors adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year. RESULTS: Each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching to their preferred specialty than MD seniors, -7.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.9) for DO seniors, -45.6 % (-50.6 to -40.5) for US IMGs, and -56.6 % (-61.5 to -51.6) for non-US IMGs. Similarly, each non-MD applicant type had a lower adjusted percent difference in matching than MD seniors across almost all Step 1 score ranges, except for DO seniors with Step 1 scores <200 (-2.0 % [-9.5 to 5.5]). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for specialty choice, Step 1 score, and match year, non-US MD applicants had lower probabilities of matching into their preferred specialties than their US MD colleagues.

Examining differences in trends in the orthopedic surgery match for osteopathic and allopathic medical graduates after the transition to single accreditation.

CONTEXT: The landscape of medical education in the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the rise of osteopathic medical students, constituting a substantial portion of medical school entrants. The merger of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 2020 opened residency slots to allopathic graduates that were previously historically allocated to osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians. This has impacted various medical specialties, notably orthopedic surgery. Despite an increase in orthopedic surgery applicants, the match rates for DO candidates have faced challenges, raising concerns about the impact of this merger on the future of orthopedic training for DO students. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to analyze the trends in orthopedic surgery match rates for DO vs MD applicants since the single accreditation merger, which began in 2015 with a 5-year transition period that was finalized by 2020. By examining factors such as application numbers, research output, standardized test scores, and program director preferences, the study seeks to identify disparities and challenges faced by DO applicants in securing orthopedic surgery residencies. METHODS: This study utilized publicly available data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) 2018, 2020, and 2022 reports. Data encompassed applicant characteristics, including standardized test scores, research experiences, and match outcomes. The study also incorporated insights from NRMP program director surveys, focusing on interview and ranking practices. The analysis involved comparisons of application numbers, match rates, research productivity, and test scores between DO and MD applicants. Statistical analysis was employed to identify any statistically significant differences among the examined variables for the 3 years included in the study. RESULTS: The research revealed a consistent increase in orthopedic surgery applicants from both DO and MD backgrounds. However, MD applicants consistently had higher match rates compared to their DO counterparts, with the gap narrowing over the years. Notably, disparities persisted in research output, with MD applicants demonstrating a significant advantage in publications and presentations. Standardized test scores, although slightly higher for MD applicants, did not significantly impact the differences in match rates. MD applicants had statistically significantly higher numbers of applicants (P = .0010), number of publications (P = .0091), and number of research experiences (P = .0216) over the years examined. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores on Step 1 (P = .5038) or Step 2 (P = .4714) between MD and DO candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in the acceptance and ranking of DO applicants by program directors, the study highlights enduring challenges in orthopedic surgery match rates between DO and MD candidates. The lack of research opportunities for DO students stands out as a crucial area for improvement, necessitating systemic changes within medical education. Addressing this disparity and ensuring equal access to research experiences could mitigate the gap in match rates, promoting a more equitable environment for all aspiring orthopedic surgeons, regardless of their medical background. Such efforts are vital to fostering inclusivity and enhancing opportunities for osteopathic medical students pursuing competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery.

Fluid professional boundaries: ethnographic observations of co-located chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists (COPs) can assess and manage musculoskeletal conditions with similar manual or physical therapy techniques. This overlap in scope of practice raises questions about the boundaries between the three professions. Clinical settings where they are co-located are one of several possible influences on professional boundaries and may provide insight into the nature of these boundaries and how they are managed by clinicians themselves. OBJECTIVES: To understand the nature of professional boundaries between COPs within a co-located clinical environment and describe the ways in which professional boundaries may be reinforced, weakened, or navigated in this environment. METHODS: Drawing from an interpretivist paradigm, we used ethnographic observations to observe interactions between 15 COPs across two clinics. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis principles. RESULTS: We identified various physical and non-physical 'boundary objects' that influenced the nature of the professional boundaries between the COPs that participated in the study. These boundary objects overall seemed to increase the fluidity of the professional boundaries, at times simultaneously reinforcing and weakening them. The boundary objects were categorised into three themes: physical, including the clinic's floor plan, large and small objects; social, including identities and discourse; and organisational, including appointment durations and fees, remuneration policies and insurance benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Physical, social, organisational related factors made the nature of professional boundaries between COPs in these settings fluid; meaning that they were largely not rigid or fixed but rather flexible, responsive and subject to change. These findings may challenge patients, clinicians and administrators to appreciate that traditional beliefs of distinct boundaries between COPs may not be so in co-located clinical environments. Both clinical practice and future research on professional boundaries between COPs may need to further consider some of these broader factors.

Characteristics, Opportunities, and Challenges of Osteopathy Based on the Perceptions of Osteopaths in Austria: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no uniform regulations for the osteopathic profession in Europe. It is subject to country-specific regulations defining who shall be allowed to practice osteopathy and which qualification shall be required. In recent years, legal regulations have been established in several European countries for the profession of osteopathy; however, these are also still pending for Austria. Currently, physiotherapists and physicians with osteopathic training are practicing osteopathy in Austria. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the characteristics, challenges, and opportunities of osteopaths in Austria. METHODS: Guideline-based interviews with osteopaths (N=10) were conducted. The different research questions were examined using a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The study provided a differentiated insight into the professional situation of osteopaths in Austria. The most important result was that all interviewees unanimously supported a legal regulation of their profession. However, owing to their different professional self-image-on the one hand, individuals working on a structural basis, and, on the other hand, individuals working on a cranial or biodynamic basis-they were able to imagine a uniform professional regulation only to a limited extent. Additional topics for the interviewed osteopaths in Austria were the quality assurance of training and the urgent need for scientific research. Furthermore, the study also dealt with the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily practice and on education and training in osteopathy. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a pioneering study with regard to systematic basic research on osteopathy in Austria. The obtained results and the newly acquired research questions not only have the potential to serve as a basis for further studies but also provide insight into the working and professional situation of osteopaths in Austria for universities, schools, professional associations, politics, and-last but not least-all interested parties. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/15399.

Diversity in osteopathic medical school admissions and the COMPASS program: an update.

In the United States, the 40 colleges of osteopathic medicine and 157 schools of allopathic medicine face challenges in recruiting candidates who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM), and gaps in racial disparity appear to be widening. In this commentary, the authors provide an analysis of the data collected from 8 years of conducting a URiM recruitment and welcoming social events. The event is sponsored by a student special interest group called Creating Osteopathic Minority Physicians Who Achieve Scholastic Success (COMPASS) at the Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine - New York (TouroCOM-NY). The results of the 8-year data analysis supports the conclusion that the COMPASS program has benefited the school environment through increased diversity.

Profession-based manual therapy nomenclature: exploring history, limitations, and opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: The International Consortium on Manual Therapies (ICMT) is a grassroots interprofessional association open to any formally trained practitioner of manual therapy (MT) and basic scientists promoting research related to the practice of MT. Currently, MT research is impeded by professions' lack of communication with other MT professions, biases, and vernacular. Current ICMT goals are to minimize these barriers, compare MT techniques, and establish an interprofessional MT glossary. METHODS: Practitioners from all professions with training in manual therapies were encouraged by e-mail and website to participate (www.ICMTConferene.org). Video conferences were conducted at least bimonthly for 2.5 years by profession-specific and interprofessional focus groups (FGs). Members summarized scopes of practice, technique descriptions, associated mechanisms of action (MOA), and glossary terms. Each profession presented their work to the interprofessional FG to promote dialogue, understanding and consensus. Outcomes were reported and refined at numerous public events. RESULTS: Focus groups with representatives from 5 MT professions, chiropractic, massage therapy, osteopathic, physical therapy and structural integration identified 17 targeting osseous structures and 49 targeting nonosseous structures. Thirty-two techniques appeared distinct to a specific profession, and 13 were used by more than 1. Comparing descriptions identified additional commonalities. All professions agreed on 4 MOA categories for MT. A glossary of 280 terms and definitions was consolidated, representing key concepts in MT. Twenty-one terms were used by all MT professions and basic scientists. Five terms were used by MT professions exclusive of basic scientists. CONCLUSION: Outcomes suggested a third to a half of techniques used in MT are similar across professions. Additional research is needed to better define the extent of similarity and how to consistently identify those approaches. Ongoing expansion and refinement of the glossary is necessary to promote descriptive clarity and facilitate communication between practitioners and basic scientists.

Defining the landscape of patient harm after osteopathic manipulative treatment: synthesis of an adverse event model.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), is a popular complementary physical health approach for the treatment of neuromusculoskeletal disorders. However, post-OMT adverse events (AEs) are poorly defined in terms of frequency, severity, and temporal evolution. To date, no benchmark for patient safety exists. To improve understanding in this field, we set out to model the landscape of patient harm after OMT. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of all available primary clinical research studies reporting on the occurrence of post-OMT AEs in nonpregnant, adult outpatients treated by an osteopathic physician in the United States. The methodology of eligible studies was then reviewed to select those containing the minimum required dataset to model the post-OMT AEs. The minimum required dataset consisted of four model parameters: 'post-OMT interval', 'OMT encounters with post-OMT interval assessment', 'AEs preceded by an OMT encounter', and 'AE severity.' We used the dataset extracted from selected studies to calculate a patient safety benchmark defined as the incidence rate of AEs per 100 post-OMT interval-days. RESULTS: From 212 manuscripts that we identified, 118 primary clinical research studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological review, of which 13 studies passed and were selected for modeling. Mild AEs were the most frequent, accounting for n = 161/165 (98%) of total AEs observed in the literature. The cumulative incidence of mild AEs was also significantly greater (P = 0.01) than both moderate and severe grades. The benchmark incidence rate was 1.0 AEs per 100 post-OMT interval-days. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of post-OMT AEs observed in the primary clinical literature were of mild severity. Modeling of the combined dataset on post-OMT AEs allowed for the derivation of a patient safety benchmark that, to date, has not been established in the field of osteopathic manipulative medicine. Additional research is needed to improve model resolution during the post-OMT period. This work conceptualized a model for identifying and grading post-OMT AEs, which should facilitate future comparisons between institutions in order to continually improve patient safety standards in the field of osteopathic manipulative medicine.

Impact of the USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 transition to Pass/Fail on osteopathic medical student stress levels and board preparation.

CONTEXT: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Exam (COMLEX) Level 1 transitioned from a numeric scoring system to a Pass/Fail designation in 2022. This transition intended to decrease stress, improve medical student well-being, and encourage residency program directors to emphasize other aspects of residency applications. Pass/Fail score transitions in the undergraduate medical education curriculum have improved medical student psychological well-being and satisfaction; whether these same benefits translate to the board examination period is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to assess the impact of USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 grade scale transition on medical student stress, wellness, board preparation decisions, and future residency selection processes. Investigators hypothesized that students under the Pass/Fail designation would experience less stress during the intensive study period leading up to USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 and devote more time to other aspects of their residency applications. METHODS: To examine the impact on osteopathic medical student (OMS) stress and approach to board preparation, two surveys were administered to Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine (RVU-COM) students before (Class of 2023) and after (Class of 2024) the transition to a Pass/Fail designation. All students within the RVU-COM Classes of 2023 and 2024 were invited to participate. The Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) was administered at the beginning of the focused board study period in May 2021 and 2022 to the Class of 2023 and 2024, respectively. The investigator-designed Licensing Exam Questionnaire (LEQ), meant to capture board preparation patterns, residency application perspectives, and wellness during examination preparation, was administered immediately after the board examination deadline in July 2021 and 2022 to the Class of 2023 and 2024, respectively. Statistical analysis included the use of independent t tests (numeric variables) and chi-square tests (categorical data). This project was considered exempt from full Institutional Review Board review. RESULTS: Approximately one-third of the Class of 2023 (PSS-10: n=86; LEQ: n=93) and 2024 (PSS-10=89; LEQ: n=92) responded. No difference was detected in mean PSS-10 score, 20.14 (SD=7.3) compared to 19.92 (SD=6.56) for the Class of 2023 and 2024 (p=0.84), respectively. The Class of 2023 reported more weeks studying (mean 6.27 weeks, SD=0.79) vs. the Class of 2024 (mean 5.44 weeks, SD=0.007), p<0.001, more practice examinations taken X 2 (1, n=182)=13.75, p<0.001, and a greater proportion scheduled examinations after June 20 X 2 (1, n=182)=29.01, p<0.001. No difference existed in hours studying per day, sequence of Step 1/Level 1, time between examinations, money spent, or type of study resources utilized. CONCLUSIONS: The transition of USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 to a Pass/Fail designation did not reduce stress for OMSs at a single, multicampus COM. Respondents, however, altered board preparation practices in meaningful ways. As student behaviors and board-study patterns emerge, these insights must be connected to outcomes in the future.

The process and outcomes of chronic low back pain treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians: a retrospective cohort study.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic physicians are trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, to treat somatic dysfunction with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), and to avoid unnecessarily prescribing drugs such as opioids. It is also generally believed that osteopathic physicians provide a unique patient-centered approach to medical care that involves effective communication and empathy. Such training and characteristics of osteopathic medical care (OMC) may enhance clinical outcomes among patients with chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to measure and compare the process and longitudinal outcomes of chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians and to identify mediators of the treatment effects of OMC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing adult participants with CLBP within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through December 2022. Participants having an osteopathic or allopathic physician for at least 1 month prior to registry enrollment were included and followed at quarterly intervals for up to 12 months. Physician communication and physician empathy were measured at registry enrollment. Opioid prescribing and effectiveness and safety outcomes were measured at registry enrollment and for up to 12 months and were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to compare participants treated by osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians. Multiple mediator models, including physician communication, physician empathy, opioid prescribing, and OMT, with covariate adjustments, were utilized to identify mediators of OMC treatment effects. RESULTS: A total of 1,079 participants and 4,779 registry encounters were studied. The mean (SD) age of participants at enrollment was 52.9 (13.2) years, 796 (73.8 %) were female, and 167 (15.5 %) reported having an osteopathic physician. The mean physician communication score for osteopathic physicians was 71.2 (95 % CI, 67.6-74.7) vs. 66.2 (95 % CI, 64.8-67.7) for allopathic physicians (p=0.01). The respective mean scores for physician empathy were 41.6 (95 % CI, 39.9-43.2) vs. 38.3 (95 % CI, 37.6-39.1) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in opioid prescribing for low back pain between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. Although participants treated by osteopathic physicians reported less severe nausea and vomiting as adverse events potentially attributable to opioids in a multivariable model, neither result was clinically relevant. OMC was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 12 months. Physician empathy was a significant mediator of OMC treatment effects in each of the three outcome domains; however, physician communication, opioid prescribing, and OMT were not mediators. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that osteopathic physicians provide a patient-centered approach to CLBP treatment, particularly involving empathy, that yields significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and HRQOL over 12 months of follow-up.

Comparison of Hospital Outcomes for Patients Treated by Allopathic Versus Osteopathic Hospitalists : An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The United States has 2 types of degree programs that educate physicians: allopathic and osteopathic medical schools. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quality and costs of care differ between hospitalized Medicare patients treated by allopathic or osteopathic physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Medicare claims data. PATIENTS: 20% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with a medical condition during 2016 to 2019 and treated by hospitalists. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 30-day patient mortality. The secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS), and health care spending (Part B spending). Multivariable regression models adjusted for patient and physician characteristics and their hospital-level averages (to effectively estimate differences within hospitals) were estimated. RESULTS: Of 329 510 Medicare admissions, 253 670 (77.0%) and 75 840 (23.0%) received care from allopathic and osteopathic physicians, respectively. The results can rule out important differences in quality and costs of care between allopathic versus osteopathic physicians for patient mortality (adjusted mortality, 9.4% for allopathic physicians vs. 9.5% [reference] for osteopathic hospitalists; average marginal effect [AME], -0.1 percentage point [95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1 percentage point]; P = 0.36), readmission (15.7% vs. 15.6%; AME, 0.1 percentage point [CI, -0.4 to 0.3 percentage point; P = 0.72), LOS (4.5 vs. 4.5 days; adjusted difference, -0.001 day [CI, -0.04 to 0.04 day]; P = 0.96), and health care spending ($1004 vs. $1003; adjusted difference, $1 [CI, -$8 to $10]; P = 0.85). LIMITATION: Data were limited to elderly Medicare patients hospitalized with medical conditions. CONCLUSION: The quality and costs of care were similar between allopathic and osteopathic hospitalists when they cared for elderly patients and worked as the principal physician in a team of health care professionals that often included other allopathic and osteopathic physicians. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging.

Assessing patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine.

CONTEXT: Previous studies document that both osteopathic physicians and third-party observers identify an approach to the patient that is consistent with the philosophy and tenets of osteopathic medicine, often without investigating whether patients identify or are satisfied with it. Osteopathic physicians and the medical education community understand the distinctiveness of an osteopathic approach to the patient. Understanding the outcomes of an osteopathic approach to patient care includes confirming whether patients experience the tenets of osteopathic medicine in physician visits and, if so, how it relates to their experience of physician empathy and satisfaction with the visit. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine, physician empathy, and satisfaction with the visit and to compare the results for patients who saw DOs with those who saw MD physicians. METHODS: More than 2000 patients at four outpatient clinic facilities were surveyed after a clinical visit on 22 prompts regarding their experiences of physician behaviors, physician empathy, and their own satisfaction with the encounter. Adult patients who were treated by an osteopathic or allopathic physician for a nonemergency encounter and who were not pregnant were included in the analysis. Survey results for 1,330 patient-physician encounters were analyzed utilizing linear regression models comparing constructs representing patient experiences of the tenets of osteopathic medicine (Tenets), physician empathy (Physician Empathy), satisfaction (Satisfaction) with the encounter, as well as additional demographic and encounter variables. RESULTS: Approximately 23.8 % of patients approached during the study period completed a survey (n=2,793), and among those, 54.7 % of patients who consented to the study and who saw a physician provider (n=1,330/2,431) were included. Significant (p≤0.01), positive associations among patient experiences of Satisfaction with the visit and Physician Empathy were observed among those who saw both DO and MD physicians. Patients experienced the Tenets during encounters with both DO and MD physicians, but linear regression showed that their experience of the Tenets was significantly (p≤0.01) and positively explained by their experience of Physician Empathy (ß=0.332, p=0.00, se=0.052) and Satisfaction with the visit (ß=0.209, p=0.01, se=0.081) only when the physician was a DO. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified physician behaviors consistent with the Tenets and positively associated their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction with the visit regardless of physician training background. Patient experience of the Tenets significantly explained their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction after visits with a DO but not after visits with an MD.

Osteopathy in rural and remote Australia: analysis of demographic, practice and clinical management characteristics from a nationally representative sample of 992 osteopaths.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant interest in allied health and the role it plays in health care for rural and remote populations. In Australia, osteopaths are allied health professionals who manage predominantly musculoskeletal complaints using manual therapy, exercise and patient education. Workforce distribution is a significant issue for osteopathy in Australia with most practitioners centred in the metropolitan regions of Victoria and New South Wales. There is limited evidence about the role osteopathy plays in the musculoskeletal health of Australian rural and remote populations. This research sought to profile the characteristics of Australian osteopaths who practise in rural and remote settings. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) data was undertaken to identify the demographic, practice and clinical management characteristics of Australian osteopaths in rural and remote settings. ORION is a practice-based research network for the Australian osteopathy profession. The ORION questionnaire comprised 27 items regarding osteopaths' characteristics. Inferential statistics were used to identify characteristics that were significantly different between Australian osteopaths practising in rural and remote settings compared to those practising in urban settings. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) relating to characteristics significantly associated with practising in a rural and remote setting. RESULTS: Of 992 osteopaths who responded to the ORION questionnaire, 18.3% (n=172) indicated practising in a rural and remote setting. Australian osteopaths in rural and remote settings were more likely to report receiving referrals from massage therapists (AOR 2.17), send referrals to other osteopaths (AOR 1.64), and often treat patients over the age of 65 years (AOR 2.25) compared to their urban counterparts. Osteopaths in rural and remote setting were less likely to report using private health insurance claim systems (AOR 0.36) and to treat non-English-speaking patients (AOR 0.09). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis identified several practitioner and practice characteristics that differ between osteopaths practising in rural and remote settings and those practising in urban settings. These findings contribute to the emerging picture of the practice of rural and remote Australian osteopaths. Further research is required to understand the role osteopaths play in rural and remote health care, and how the current data can inform workforce and health policy development.

Utilization and reimbursement trends of osteopathic manipulative treatment for Medicare patients: 2000-2019.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been established as a beneficial and noninvasive treatment option for multiple conditions. With the total number of osteopathic providers tripling and the subsequent increase in osteopathic physician representation, we would expect the clinical use of OMT to increase accordingly. OBJECTIVES: To that end, we evaluated the utilization and reimbursement of OMT services among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 98925 to 98929 were accessed from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) from 2000 to 2019. These codes indicate OMT treatment, 98925 (1-2 body regions treated), 98926 (3-4 body regions treated), 98927 (5-6 body regions treated), 98928 (7-8 body regions treated), and 98929 (9-10 body regions treated). Monetary reimbursement from Medicare was adjusted for inflation, and total code volume was scaled to codes per 10,000 beneficiaries to account for the increase in Medicare enrollment. RESULTS: Overall OMT utilization declined between 2000 and 2019 by 24.5%. A significant downward trend in the utilization of CPT codes for OMT involving fewer body regions (98925-98927) was observed, and was contrasted by a slight upward trend in the use of codes for more body regions (98928, 98929). The adjusted sum reimbursement of all codes decreased by 23.2%. Lower value codes showed a higher rate of decline, whereas higher value codes changed less dramatically. CONCLUSIONS: We conjecture that lower remuneration for OMT has disincentivized physicians financially and may have contributed to the overall decline in OMT utilization among Medicare patients, along with a decreased number of residencies offering specific training in OMT, and increased billing complexity. In considering the upward trend of higher-value code usage, it is possible that some physicians are increasing the comprehensiveness of their physical assessment and associated OMT to reduce the overall financial impact of reimbursement cuts.

Perceived Value of Osteopathic Recognition.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2020 the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) became the sole accrediting body for osteopathic and allopathic residency programs, with an option for programs to apply for Osteopathic Recognition (OR) to distinguish their training in osteopathic principles and practice. There is limited research regarding this transition. The goal of our study was to assess the perceived value of OR and perceived difficulty of obtaining OR for family medicine residency programs. METHODS: We performed analyses regarding the difficulty of obtaining OR status and the value of OR and Osteopathic Principles and Practice (OPP) using questions on the 2020 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) omnibus survey. RESULTS: Of the 280 program directors (PD) responding, 69 (24.6%) had OR status, 126 (45.0%) were considering applying or would apply if needed resources were available, and 85 (30.4%) were not considering OR. Of the 73 PDs reporting on experience with the OR process, 28 (38.4%) found it "very smooth," 30 (41.1%) found it "a little bumpy," and 15 (20.5%) found it "very bumpy"; 87.0% of PDs (60 of 69) with OR felt it had value in recruiting DO students and 31.8% (22/69) in recruiting MD students; 86.9% of programs with OR status perceived OPP to be somewhat or very valuable in enhancing patient satisfaction compared to 77% of those considering OR and 44.7% not considering OR. CONCLUSIONS: Program directors perceive value in OR status for recruiting and in osteopathic practice for patient care. Since 75.4% of responding program directors have or are interested in achieving OR status, further research is needed on its benefits and barriers.

Barriers to research opportunities among osteopathic medical students.

CONTEXT: Despite the increase of importance placed on research, both by residency program directors and the medical field at large, osteopathic medical students (OMS) have significantly fewer research experiences than United States (U.S.) allopathic medical students and non-U.S. international medical graduates. However, few studies have addressed this long-standing discrepancy, and none directly have focused on osteopathic medical students to assess their unique needs. The literature would benefit from identifying the barriers osteopathic medical students encounter when participating in research and understanding the currently available resources. OBJECTIVES: To assess the barriers that OMS face when seeking research opportunities, identify resources currently available to osteopathic medical students at their respective schools, and investigate factors that contribute to an osteopathic medical student's desire to pursue research opportunities. Additionally, to investigate osteopathic medical students' confidence in research methodology. METHODS: A survey was created by the investigators and administered to participants over a three-month period via a GoogleForm. Research participants were surveyed for demographic information, as well as their involvement in research projects in the past, mentor availability, institutional resources, motivation to participate in research, individual barriers to participation, and confidence in their ability to do independent research. Responses were de-identified and analyzed using Microsoft Excel functions to count data and calculate percentages, as well as Pearson's chi square analysis. RESULTS: After relevant exclusion, 668 responses were included. Of the students surveyed, 85.9% (574) indicated they currently and/or in the past were involved in research. More than half of the respondents that are not currently involved in research are interested in pursuing it (86.9%; 344). The primary barriers students reported facing include lack of time (57.8%; 386), feeling overwhelmed and unsure how to start (53.4%; 357), and lack of access to research (53%; 354). 34.7% (232) of students stated they either did not have resources from their school or were unsure whether these resources were available. The two most cited motivations to pursue research included boosting their residency application and/or interest in the area of study. Male gender and current research were associated with reported confidence in research ( [4, n=662]=10.6, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study provide a synopsis of the barriers to research opportunities among osteopathic medical students. Notably, ⅓ of OMSs reported an absence or unawareness of available research resources at their osteopathic medical schools.

Enabling health potential: exploring nonlinear and complex results of osteopathic manual medicine through complex systems theory.

Osteopathic medicine is a holistic, patient-specific approach. Explaining the impact of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) has been problematic because many of its effects are nonlinear. Complex systems theory (CST) is explored as a mechanism of understanding the interplay of the body's anatomy and physiology, an illness process, and the effects of OMM. Tensegrity is discussed as an example of an emergent property of the body's systems that affects not only biomechanics but also pathophysiology. Previous explanations of osteopathic philosophy are reviewed. The Host + Disease=Illness paradigm is a way to think through the impact of host and disease factors on an illness state, and how targeted interventions may affect the illness. The Osteopathic 5 Models are another way to view the body's complexity. The area of greatest restriction (AGR) screen can be understood to direct OMM in a way that respects complexity and enables asymmetric and nonlocal results to realize health potential. The impact of this framework is in coherently explaining the impact of osteopathic philosophy and OMM and exploring new approaches to research.