The association between students taking elective courses in chiropractic technique and their anticipated chiropractic technique choices in future practice

2Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To assess students’ opinions of the potential influence of taking elective courses in chiropractic techniques and their future practice preferences. Methods: An anonymous, voluntary survey was conducted among graduating students from a doctor of chiropractic program. The survey included questions regarding the chiropractic technique elective courses they had completed and the potential influence of these courses on their chiropractic technique choices in future practice. Surveys were pretested for face validity, and data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Of the 56 surveys distributed, 46 were completed, for a response rate of 82%. More than half of the students reported having taken at Least 1 elective course in diversified technique (80%), Cox technique (76%), Activator Methods (70%), or sacro-occipital technique (63%). Less than half of the respondents reported taking technique elective courses in Gonstead or Thompson techniques. More than half of the students stated they were more likely to use Activator (72%), Thompson (68%), diversified (57%), or Cox (54%) techniques in their future practice after taking an elective course in that technique. Females stated that they were more likely to use Activator Methods (p ¼ .006) in future practice. Conclusion: Chiropractic technique elective courses in the doctor of chiropractic curriculum May influence students’ choices of future practice chiropractic technique.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wanlass, P. W., Sikorski, D. M., Kizhakkeveettil, A., & Tobias, G. S. (2018). The association between students taking elective courses in chiropractic technique and their anticipated chiropractic technique choices in future practice. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 32(2), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-17-11

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free