Skip to main content
Download PDF

Self-reported attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among Swiss chiropractors: a national survey

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies volume 30, Article number: 59 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Study Objectives

The high burden of disease associated with musculoskeletal disorders severely impacts patients’ well-being. As primary care providers, Swiss chiropractors ought to contribute towards identifying and using effective treatment strategies. An established approach is the full integration of evidence-based practice (EBP). This study aimed to investigate the attitudes, skills and use of EBP among Swiss chiropractors, as well as investigating potential facilitators and barriers for its adoption.

Methods and material

All 329 members of the Swiss Association of Chiropractic (ChiroSuisse) were invited in March 2021 to participate in this cross-sectional survey. Data were acquired anonymously online, using the Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization SurvEy (EBASE). The survey encompassed 55 questions measuring attitudes (n = 8, response range 1–5; total score range of 8–40), skills (n = 13, response range 1–5; total score range of range of 13–65) and use of EBP (n = 6, response range 0–4; total score range of 0–24).

Results

228 (69.3%) chiropractors returned complete EBASE questionnaires. This sample was representative of all ChiroSuisse members with respect to gender, age groups and proportion of chiropractic residents. Respondents generally held positive attitudes towards EBP, as indicated by the high mean (31.2) and median (31) attitude sub-score (range 11–40). Self-reported skills had a mean sub-score of 40.2 and median of 40 (range 13–65). Knowledge about EBP-based clinical practice had been primarily obtained in chiropractic under- or postgraduate education (33.8% and 26.3%, respectively). Use of EBP achieved a lower sub-score, with mean and median values of 7.4 and 6, respectively (range 0–24). The most commonly identified barriers preventing EBP uptake were lack of time (67.9%) and lack of clinical evidence in chiropractic/manual therapy-related health fields (45.1%).

Conclusion

Swiss chiropractors held favourable attitudes and reported moderate to moderate-high skill levels in EBP. Nevertheless, similar to chiropractors in other countries, the self-reported use of EBP was relatively low, with lack of time and lack of clinical evidence being the most named barriers.

Introduction

The high burden of disease associated with musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) strains health care systems worldwide [1,2,3]. In fact, MSD ranked top twenty (place 19) regarding disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019, when compared to 329 other diseases and injuries [4]. Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) in particular are among the top ten global leading causes of disability contributing to the need for rehabilitation [3, 5, 6].

MSD, including LBP and NP, are the main focus of chiropractors as primary care providers. Being one of the five government-recognized medical professions in Switzerland, chiropractic carries a lot of responsibility to use effective treatment strategies [7,8,9,10].

An established approach in the medical community to address the increasing burden of MSD is improved patient treatment through the full integration of evidence-based practice (EBP). The key ideas of using “current best evidence from clinical research in the management of individual patients” dates back as far as the renaissance [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Since then, the potential of EBP to effectively manage health disorders including LBP and NP has increased tremendously. The three pillars of EBP are best available research evidence, clinical expertise and patients’ values and preferences [11,12,13, 20,21,22,23,24]. Modern technologies provide virtually unlimited access to scientific research from all around the world [18]. Despite these advances, the clinical application of research results and corresponding guidelines remains challenging [18, 22, 25,26,27]. Significant determinants for the uptake of research results are perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding EBP [28]. For example, it was found that limited uptake of EBP is often caused by a misunderstanding of the concept [28]. Thus, further investigation is required to not only determine the current attitudes, skills and use of EBP among chiropractors, but also to identify potential barriers and facilitators for its full integration into everyday clinical practice.

The World Federation of Chiropractic, the European Council on Chiropractic Education (ECCE) and the Swiss Association of Chiropractic (ChiroSuisse) have all defined the delivery of evidence-based care as one of the main goals in their strategy or as an educational outcome [29,30,31]. Studies conducted in Sweden, Canada and the U.S. [7, 9, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] have investigated how chiropractors include research evidence in their clinical practice. In general, study participants showed favourable attitudes towards EBP and believed that it supports their decision-making [9, 32,33,34,35,36, 40]. However, these investigations also identified insufficient knowledge transfer into practice [9, 32,33,34,35].

In Switzerland, studies investigating the attitudes towards EBP and recording its level of implementation have been conducted among nurses and allied health care providers [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. The results are comparable to the studies cited above, with generally positive attitudes towards EBP but unsatisfactory implementation into clinical practice [43, 46]. Analyses focusing on Swiss chiropractors are currently missing.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were to investigate the attitudes, skills and use of EBP among Swiss chiropractors, and to identify potential facilitators and barriers toward EBP adoption in clinical practice.

Methods

General

This national online survey was conducted between March 30, 2021 and July 11, 2021. The survey was administered anonymously online through REDCap, a secure web-based application [49].

This study was exempted from ethics review by the ethic commission of Kanton Zürich, as it did not fall within the scope of Swiss Federal Human Research Act (BASEC-Nr. Req-2021-00,173).

Participants and recruitment

In March 2021, all members of the professional association of chiropractors in Switzerland, ChiroSuisse, i.e. 296 fully qualified Swiss chiropractors and 33 chiropractic residents (postgraduates undergoing mandatory training, similar to pursuing a medical specialty, before being eligible for licensing), were sent an individualized link to the survey in REDCap (56). To ensure blinding, all communication with the study participants was performed by an independent member of the research team at the Department of Chiropractic Medicine at Balgrist University Hospital.

To achieve a high response rate, two advance notices were provided before launching the survey at the end of March 2021. Following the Dillman survey method [50, 51], non-respondents were reminded to participate in predefined intervals. In the present study, a total of six reminder emails were sent, one every other week. Furthermore, an appeal to join the study was made by the authors and through email by the president of ChiroSuisse. As an incentive to participate, all respondents were awarded three continuing education points upon completion of the survey.

Material

To achieve the study aim, a national online survey based on the Evidence-Based practice Attitude and utilization SurvEy (EBASE) questionnaire was conducted among Swiss chiropractors in 2021. According to methods described by Polit and Hungler, this questionnaire is a self-administered tool with acceptable content and convergent validity, and good test–retest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.84) [52,53,54]. EBASE has already been used in similar studies among chiropractors worldwide [9, 32,33,34,35]. Permission to use the tool was obtained from one of the developers in November 2020 through personal communication.

The original EBASE questionnaire consists of six parts (Part A–Part F) with a total of 64 questions, as well as a demographic section. Parts A, B and D focus on the attitudes, skills and use respectively, each generating a sub-score proportional to how strong the answers are in favour of EBP. To allow international comparison, the content and scoring rubric of these three sections was not modified and the original survey language (English) was kept. The questions in Part C aim to measure the level of EBP-related training and education. The original questions required adaptation to the Swiss under- and postgraduate chiropractic education program [8, 55]. Finally, common barriers and facilitators are investigated in Parts E and F, respectively. Part E was extended with a question to select the top three barriers from a given list and some statements in Part F were combined to improve readability. In addition, minor modifications in the wording based on Schneider and colleagues [32] and Bussières and colleagues [32] were adopted to make the survey more suitable for chiropractors.

In view of future studies, two more sections (Part G and H) were included. Part G asked about the x-ray behaviour and general awareness of guidelines, which is an important measure for use of EBP in daily practice not covered by the three EBASE sub-scores. A non-existing (i.e. thoracic) guideline was added to identify potential social-desirability bias. Part H focussed on the chiropractor’s role and identity [7, 56, 57]. The other results of Parts G and H, are outside the scope of this paper and will be published separately. The survey encompassed a total of 81 questions and was pilot tested before deployment, in order to rule out misunderstandings and verify the time needed for completion of approximately 20 min.

Data analysis

Survey data were analysed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows, Version 27 (Armonk, New York, IBM Corp.). Representativeness of the sample with respect to the ChiroSuisse member base was verified in terms of gender, age groups and proportion of chiropractic residents using the one sample chi-square test. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated for each item in Parts A, B, D, E and F, including response frequencies and mean for normally distributed data, as well as both mean and median for non-normally distributed values. Sub-scores of attitudes (Part A), skills (Part B) and use (Part D) were computed by summing the first eight items of Part A (response range 1–5, score range 8–40), all 13 items of Part B (response range 1–5, score range 13–65) and the first six items of Part D (response range 0–4, score range 0–24) [52]. Higher sub-scores indicate higher self-reported levels of attitudes, skills and use of EBP. Possible associations between demographic variables, the three sub-scores and recognition of the three EBP pillars were explored using Kendall’s Tau correlation coefficient. The coefficients were interpreted as follows: weak correlation (0.10–0.29), moderate correlation (0.30–0.49) and strong correlation (0.50–1.00) [58,59,60].

Results

Demographics

In total, 228 out of the 329 invited chiropractors and chiropractic residents completed the entire survey (response rate of 69.3%). The gender, age group distribution as well as the proportion of chiropractic residents did not significantly differ from the data provided by ChiroSuisse (p’s > 0.13). Apart from chiropractic, 43.9% of the participants obtained an additional higher education or even a postgraduate degree (6.1%) or PhD (0.9%). Nearly two thirds (65.4%) had been in practice for over 16 years, and 44.3% shared a clinic with other chiropractors.

The detailed results for the demographic section are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline demographics of 228 Swiss chiropractors who completed the whole online survey
Full size table

Attitudes toward EBP

In general, the participants showed positive attitudes toward EBP and agreed or strongly agreed (> 70%) with seven of the ten attitude statements of EBP. Also, nearly all subjects (93.9%) did not feel that the adoption of EBP places an unreasonable demand on their practice or were at least neutral with respect to the statement. The majority of respondents (80.3%) were interested to learn more about EBP. Accordingly, the mean (31.18) and median (31) of the attitudes sub-score were high (range 11–40). These values are consistent with EBASE-based studies amongst chiropractors in Canada, the U.S. and Sweden (Table 10 in the appendix).

While many chiropractors (75.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that clinical experience is part of the decision-making process in EBP, just about half (48.2%) answered that a patient’s preference also has to be taken into account for EBP. Respondents who disagreed with either statement showed a weak negative correlation with respect to both skills (τ = − 0.239, p = 0.001) and use (τ = − 0.162, p = 0.004) sub-scores.

A weak negative correlation between the attitudes sub-score and age (τ = − 0.117, p = 0.005), as well as years in practice since fully-licensed (τ = − 0.128, p = 0.009) was found across the entire sample. Additionally, a weak positive correlation was observed between the attitudes sub-score and the highest degree apart from chiropractic (τ = 0.158, p = 0.002).

A quantitative overview of the responses in the attitude part is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Part A - Self-reported attitudes toward the listed statements
Full size table

Skills in EBP

Participants were confident in their ability to identify knowledge gaps and answerable clinical questions, reporting skill levels of 4 and 5 in 61% or 65.7% of the cases. That being said, lack of expertise in conducting clinical research and systematic reviews became apparent. Specifically, a poor rating (1 or 2) was selected by 75.5% of the subjects in the former statement and by 68.8% in the latter. Table 3 displays the complete list of results. Evaluating the self-reported skills resulted in a mean sub-score of 40.2 with median at 40 (range 13–65). As shown in Table 10, these values are slightly lower compared to international scores.

Table 3 Part B - Self-reported skills level in the listed areas
Full size table

Similar to the attitudes sub-score, the skills sub-score was weakly negatively correlated with age (τ = − 0.119, p = 0.004)) and years in practice since fully-licensed (τ = − 0.101, p = 0.029). A weak positive correlation was found between the skills sub-score and the highest degree (τ = 0.197, p = 0.0001). No statistically significant associations were found with respect to other demographic factors.

Training in EBP

For most participants, knowledge about EBP-based clinical practice had been primarily obtained in chiropractic under- or postgraduate education, with 33.8% and 26.3% respectively. Informal personal study was reported as the main source by 13.6%. Responses to all predefined statements are shown in Table 4. Additional statements in “Other” included: yearlong practice, student examination, discussion and exchange with other practitioners and common sense. Only 2.2% of the participants had not received any training. This group exhibited a weak negative correlation with both the attitudes sub-score (τ = − 0.153, p = 0.006) and skills sub-score (τ = − 0.266, p = 0.001).

Table 4 Part C - Self-reported setting in which the most in-depth training in the listed topic was received
Full size table

Use of EBP

Relatively conservative mean and median sub-score values of 7.4 and 6 (range 0–24) were achieved for the use of EBP (Table 10 in the appendix). Still, 56.1% of the participants stated that at least half of their practice is based on clinical research evidence. Over 93% reported to use professional literature related to the practice at least once a month, even though 36.8% also stated that it did not change their clinical practice at all. Layperson books and websites of non-government institutions, as well as online databases were not used in the last month by 56.6% and 41.2% of the respondents, respectively. A complete overview of all responses is provided in Table 5.

Table 5 Part D - Self-reported use frequency of the listed activities over the last month
Full size table

A weak positive correlation was found between the use sub-score and the highest degree obtained (τ = 0.117, p = 0.017). Statistically significant associations with other demographic factors were not observed.

Barriers and facilitators to EBP uptake

Lack of time (67.9%) and lack of clinical evidence in chiropractic/manual therapy-related health fields (45.1%) were often judged as being moderate or major barriers preventing EBP uptake by the participants (Table 6). These results are also reflected in the answer to the additional question (“please select up to three top barriers from the provided list that prevent you most from participating evidence-based practice"), where lack of time (65.4%), lack of clinical evidence in chiropractic/manual therapy-related health fields (42.1%) and lack of relevance to chiropractic practice (25.4%) were commonly rated among the top three most restricting barriers. Chiropractors selecting lack of time as the most important barrier are more likely to apply at least one of the guidelines presented in Part G in daily practice, when compared to respondents stating another barrier (τ = 0.134, p = 0.043).

Table 6 Part E - Self-reported barriers preventing from participation in EBP
Full size table

Regarding potential facilitators (Table 7), all but one of the listed enablers were rated as moderately or very useful by over 80% of the subjects. The most reported resources were free access to online databases (85.1%), as well as access to download full-text journal articles (82.5%) and access to the internet at the workplace in general (79.9%). The only statement that was rated low was “access to tools used to assist the critical appraisal”, which 28.1% thought was only slightly or not useful at all.

Table 7 Part F - Self-reported facilitators assisting in participation in EBP
Full size table

Awareness and application of evidence-based guidelines

When asked to choose from a given list, most participants were aware of low back pain (90.4%), neck pain (78.1%) and x-ray guidelines (73.2%). Only 6% of the participants did not recognise any of the provided options, as listed in Table 8. These distributions were similar when looking at the actual application of the guidelines (Table 8). Low back pain, neck pain and x-ray guidelines were used the most in the last month, namely by 69.3%, 59.6% and 48.2% of the chiropractors. In general, 60% of the participants stated that their overall patient treatment had been influenced by a guideline, mostly regarding the details of the treatment (e.g. duration, frequency) or use of x-ray. Participants who were aware of the guideline tend to be aware of more guidelines overall (τ = 0.621, p = 0.000). Similarly, application of the thoracic guideline is moderately positively correlated (τ = 0.490, p = 0.000) to the total number of applied guidelines.

Table 8 Part G - Self-reported awareness and application of listed evidence-based guidelines
Full size table

Role and identity

Inspired by the work of McGregor and colleagues and Gislason and colleagues [7, 39], the first four statements (Table 9) correspond to an orthodox view, while the fifth choice represents an unorthodox perspective to evidence-based care and guidelines. Although the latter was selected rarely (2.6%, i.e. 6 chiropractors), a statistically significant weak negative correlation was found between an unorthodox view and the skills sub-score (τ = − 0.135, p = 0.007). No other statistically significant connections were observed.

Table 9 Part H - Self-reported view of most predominant treated conditions
Full size table

Discussion

This is the first national survey investigating the self-reported attitudes, skills and use of EBP among Swiss chiropractors. A response rate of 69.3% was achieved and the participants were representative of the members of ChiroSuisse. Generally, Swiss chiropractors showed favorable attitudes towards EBP and reported moderate to moderate-high skill levels in EBP. Nevertheless, the provided answers suggest only a low to moderate use of EBP, with lack of time being stated as the most prominent barrier. Overall, these results are in line with other EBP studies among chiropractors [9, 32, 33], as discussed in detail in the following sections.

Attitudes towards EBP

The attitudes sub-score was high and also consistent with studies conducted in Canada, the U.S. and Sweden [9, 32, 33]. However, a significant number of the Swiss respondents did not recognise two of the three pillars of EBP, namely taking patient’s preference into account (50%) and considering clinical experience (25%). Interestingly, this same group showed a weak negative correlation with respect to both skills sub-scores and use sub-scores. This means that one can apply EBP despite not fully understanding the meaning of EBP.

Another noteworthy relationship was the weak negative correlation between the attitudes sub-score and age and years in practice across all participants. The demographical information indicated that over 30% of the respondents have been working for more than 25 years, meaning they completed their degree in the 1990’s the latest. Although the concept of EBP was already developed at the time, its uptake accelerated in the past 20 years, supported by new technologies, increased research effort and focused education [18, 61,62,63,64]. This seems to be reflected in the answers of younger chiropractors with fewer years in practice providing higher attitudes sub-scores.

Skills in EBP

The self-reported EBP skills resulted in mean and median sub-score values of 40 out of 65, corresponding to moderate to moderate-high skill levels. Compared to international scores, the Swiss results are slightly lower [9, 32, 33]. Multiple factors might be responsible for this difference. First, the lower response rate in the other studies (4.4–33% compared to 69.3% in the present study) increases the likelihood of a sampling bias. Although our sample was representative of the profession with respect to age groups, gender and proportion of chiropractic residents, a participation bias favouring EBP cannot be ruled out [65, 66]. In other words, chiropractors with less EBP skills and usage may have returned incomplete surveys or decided not to participate in the first place. Another reason for the lower score of Swiss chiropractors could be the so-called imposter phenomenon, resulting in lower self-assessments compared to the true skill levels [67]. However, future research is needed to confirm whether such a tendency for underestimation is more prevalent among the Swiss respondents compared to survey participants in other countries.

Despite the difference in sub-score, the Swiss and other international studies identified the lack of expertise in conducting clinical research or systematic reviews. Given that most chiropractors are primarily practitioners and not researchers, this is not surprising and indicates that skills-related questions need to be chosen carefully in future studies, depending on whether the focus lies on EBP in research or in clinical practice.

Training in EBP

As expected, chiropractors without any training in EBP showed a weak negative correlation to both the attitudes sub-score and skills sub-score. However, no correlation to the use sub-score was observed, which is somewhat counterintuitive. It appears that one either does not require training to use EBP or, perhaps more likely, the use sub-score might not be valid. This point is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Use, barriers and facilitators of EBP

A low to moderate EBP use sub-score was observed among Swiss chiropractors similar to studies from Canada, the U.S. and Sweden [9, 32, 33]. These results are consistent with other health care professions in Switzerland (studies not based on EBASE), also concluding a positive attitude but poor implementation and use of EBP [41, 43, 46]. Similar factors as for the skills sub-score, i.e. non-response bias in the other studies and underestimation of one’s skills in Switzerland, may explain the lower average scores observed in the present study.

Nonetheless, more than half of the Swiss chiropractors stated that at least half of their practice is based on clinical research. This is partly supported by the results in part G, where two-thirds of the participants indicated being aware of multiple different guidelines, with nearly 50% reporting having applied the low back pain, neck pain or x-ray guidelines in the last month. Over half of the respondents (60%) reported their practice behaviour being influenced by guidelines. With this contradiction, the question arises whether the use sub-score accurately captures the integration level of EBP in everyday clinical practice. For example, although the EBASE questionnaire inquires about searching, reading and discussing professional literature, there is no guarantee that the knowledge gained is applied when treating patients. In other words, the application of guidelines is not captured in the use sub-score, even though it might be a relevant measure for daily use of EBP. Indeed, it appears as if being more involved in research or receiving more research training is prioritised in the current use sub-score formulation, as suggested by the weak positive correlation between the score and the highest additional degree besides chiropractic. In summary, future studies should include questions more relevant for implementing EBP in clinical practice to help determine the need to revise the use sub-score.

Although the informative value of the use sub-score might be limited, conclusions can still be drawn with respect to common barriers and facilitators. Lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier. However, the effect on the implementation of clinical research in daily practice might not be particularly high, as indicted by a weak positive correlation between selecting this particular barrier compared to another one and the application of guidelines.

Role and identity

Studies by McGregor and colleagues and Gislason and colleagues [7, 39] concluded that unorthodox views are associated with opposition to or even contravention of EBP and less frequent application of guidelines. In the present study, only 6 out of the 228 participants held an unorthodox view according to the definition suggested by Gislason and colleagues [7]. Thus, the weak negative correlation to the skills sub-score has to be treated with caution.

Study strengths and limitations

A high response rate of 69.3% was achieved and the respondents were representative of all ChiroSuisse members in terms of gender, age groups and proportion of chiropractic residents. Although the EBASE questionnaire was extended and adapted for this survey, the sub-scores computation remained unchanged, allowing comparison with other studies using the same survey.

Two major limitations can be identified, namely survey fatigue and social-desirability bias.

An indication for survey fatigue is given by the fact that a total of 17 people dropped-out before completing the survey. Different efforts were made to reduce this effect, including: (1) administering a single survey instead of multiple shorter ones, (2) measuring and communicating the time required to complete the survey beforehand, allowing participants to schedule a time slot specifically for answering the questions and (3) providing incentive (continuing education points) for completion of the survey [68,69,70].

Finally, a potential social-desirability bias could be identified in part G. When asked to select known guidelines, 25% of the participants stated that they are aware of a thoracic guideline and 13% claimed to be applying it in practice. However, this response choice was purposely added to challenge the participants, as no such guideline exists to the best of the authors’ knowledge. Thus, this answer might have been selected because some respondents wanted to display the “desirable” behaviour of knowing and applying as many guidelines as possible. This argument is supported by the strong/moderate positive correlation between being aware/applying thoracic guideline and being aware/applying more guidelines overall. Self-reported surveys are prone to social-desirability bias and this assessment provides some information about its magnitude in the present study [71].

Conclusion

This is the first study about EBP attitudes, skills and use among Swiss chiropractors. Swiss chiropractors held favourable attitudes and reported moderate to moderate-high skill levels in EBP. Nevertheless, similar to chiropractors in other countries, the self-reported use of EBP was relatively low, with lack of time and lack of clinical evidence being the most named barriers. Interestingly, the skill levels and use of EBP did not appear to be affected by a large number of the respondents not recognising its full definition. Instead, the low use of EBP might be related to the scoring system not fully capturing the integration into everyday clinical practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets and analyses generated in the context of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Kosten des Gesundheitswesens | OBSAN [https://www.obsan.admin.ch/de/indikatoren/MonAM/kosten-des-gesundheitswesens]

  2. Wieser S, Riguzzi M, Pletscher M, Huber CA, Telser H, Schwenkglenks M. How much does the treatment of each major disease cost? A decomposition of Swiss National Health Accounts. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19:1149–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Briggs AM, Shiffman J, Shawar YR, Åkesson K, Ali N, Woolf AD. Global health policy in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities to arrest the global disability burden from musculoskeletal health conditions. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2020;34:101549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Collaborators GDaI: Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020, 396:1204–1222.

  5. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021;396:2006–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hurwitz EL, Randhawa K, Yu H, Côté P, Haldeman S. The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:796–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gíslason HF, Salminen JK, Sandhaugen L, Storbråten AS, Versloot R, Roug I, Newell D. The shape of chiropractic in Europe: a cross sectional survey of chiropractor’s beliefs and practice. Chiropr Man Therap. 2019;27:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Humphreys BK, Peterson CK, Muehlemann D, Haueter P. Are Swiss chiropractors different than other chiropractors? Results of the job analysis survey 2009. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33:519–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leach MJ, Palmgren PJ, Thomson OP, Fryer G, Eklund A, Lilje S, Adams J, Skillgate E, Sundberg T. Skills, attitudes and uptake of evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional study of chiropractors in the Swedish Chiropractic Association. Chiropr Man Therap. 2021;29:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chiropractic. WFo: Facts on chiropractic. https://www.wfc.org/website/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&Itemid=138〈=en; 2020.

  11. Leach MJ. Evidence-based practice: a framework for clinical practice and research design. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006;12:248–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leung GM. Evidence-based practice revisited. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2001;13:116–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dickersin K, Straus SE, Bero LA. Evidence based medicine: increasing, not dictating, choice. BMJ. 2007;334(Suppl 1): s10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alvarez-Dardet C, Ruiz MT. Thomas McKeown and Archibald Cochrane: a journey through the diffusion of their ideas. BMJ. 1993;306:1252–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM. The need for evidence-based medicine. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:620–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sackett D, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes bmc: Evidence-based medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. Evidence-based medicine. Churchill Livingston 2005, 2.

  18. Claridge JA, Fabian TC. History and development of evidence-based medicine. World J Surg. 2005;29:547–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hill GB. Archie Cochrane and his legacy. An internal challenge to physicians’ autonomy? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1189–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McKenna H, Ashton S, Keeney S. Barriers to evidence based practice in primary care: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004;41:369–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Romyn DM, Allen MN, Boschma G, Duncan SM, Edgecombe N, Jensen LA, Ross-Kerr JC, Marck P, Salsali M, Tourangeau AE, Warnock F. The notion of evidence in evidence-based practice by the nursing philosophy working group. J Prof Nurs. 2003;19:184–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawchuk G, Bruno P, Busse JW, Bussières A, Erwin M, Passmore S, Srbely J. Knowledge transfer within the canadian chiropractic community. Part 1: understanding evidence-practice gaps. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2013;57:111–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Delaney PM, Fernandez CE. Toward an evidence-based model for chiropractic education and practice. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1999;22:114–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Knaus SJ, Saum L, Cochard E, Prichard W, Skinner B, Medas R. Impact of evidence-based guidelines on outcomes of hospitalized patients with clostridium difficile infection. South Med J. 2016;109:144–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348: g3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Manchikanti L, Boswell MV, Giordano J. Evidence-based interventional pain management: principles, problems, potential and applications. Pain Phys. 2007;10:329–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kawchuk G, Newton G, Srbely J, Passmore S, Bussières A, Busse JW, Bruno P. Knowledge transfer within the Canadian chiropractic community. Part 2: narrowing the evidence-practice gap. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014;58:206–14.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lizarondo L, Grimmer-Somers K, Kumar S. A systematic review of the individual determinants of research evidence use in allied health. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011;4:261–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. World Federation of Chiropractic Strategic Plan 2019–2022

  30. Accredititation procedures and standards in first qualification chiropractic education and training [https://www.cce-europe.com/index.php/accreditation-documentation.html]

  31. ChiroSuisse Strategy 2020–2025

  32. Bussières AE, Terhorst L, Leach M, Stuber K, Evans R, Schneider MJ. Self-reported attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among Canadian doctors of chiropractic: a national survey. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2015;59:332–48.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schneider MJ, Evans R, Haas M, Leach M, Hawk C, Long C, Cramer GD, Walters O, Vihstadt C, Terhorst L. US chiropractors’ attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice: a cross-sectional national survey. Chiropr Man Therap. 2015;23:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Roecker CB, Long CR, Vining RD, Lawrence DJ. Attitudes toward evidence-based clinical practice among doctors of chiropractic with diplomate-level training in orthopedics. Chiropr Man Therap. 2013;21:43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Alcantara J, Leach MJ. Chiropractic attitudes and utilization of evidence-based practice: the use of the EBASE questionnaire. Explore (NY). 2015;11:367–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Walker BF, Stomski NJ, Hebert JJ, French SD. A survey of Australian chiropractors’ attitudes and beliefs about evidence-based practice and their use of research literature and clinical practice guidelines. Chiropr Man Therap. 2013;21:44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Walker BF, Stomski NJ, Hebert JJ, French SD. Evidence-based practice in chiropractic practice: a survey of chiropractors’ knowledge, skills, use of research literature and barriers to the use of research evidence. Complement Ther Med. 2014;22:286–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Banzai R, Derby DC, Long CR, Hondras MA. International web survey of chiropractic students about evidence-based practice: a pilot study. Chiropr Man Therap. 2011;19:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McGregor M, Puhl AA, Reinhart C, Injeyan HS, Soave D. Differentiating intraprofessional attitudes toward paradigms in health care delivery among chiropractic factions: results from a randomly sampled survey. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14:51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwarz I, Hondras MA. A survey of chiropractors practicing in Germany: practice characteristics, professional reading habits, and attitudes and perceptions toward research. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007;15:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bengough T, Bovet E, Bécherraz C, Schlegel S, Burnand B, Pidoux V. Swiss family physicians’ perceptions and attitudes towards knowledge translation practices. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dörr J, Valipour A, Strametz R, Meyer G, Lühmann D, Steurer J, Horvath K, Donner-Banzhoff N, Forster J, Sauder K, et al. Survey on evidence-based medicine teaching activities in the German-speaking area: a target-group specific analysis. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108:166–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pereira F, Pellaux V, Verloo H. Beliefs and implementation of evidence-based practice among community health nurses: a cross-sectional descriptive study. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27:2052–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Siegrist M, Giger M. A Swiss survey on teaching evidence-based medicine. Swiss Med Wkly. 2006;136:776–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Soguel L, Vaucher C, Bengough T, Burnand B, Desroches S. Knowledge translation and evidence-based practice: a qualitative study on clinical dietitians’ perceptions and practices in Switzerland. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019;119:1882–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Verloo H, Desmedt M, Morin D. Beliefs and implementation of evidence-based practice among nurses and allied healthcare providers in the Valais hospital, Switzerland. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:139–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Weberschock T, Dörr J, Valipour A, Strametz R, Meyer G, Lühmann D, Steurer J, Horvath K, Donner-Banzhoff N, Forster J, et al. Evidence-based medicine teaching activities in the German-speaking area: a survey. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2013;107:5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Perruchoud E, Fernandes S, Verloo H, Pereira F. Beliefs and implementation of evidence-based practice among nurses in the nursing homes of a Swiss canton: An observational cross-sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dillman D. The design and administration of mail surveys. Ann Rev Sociol. 2003;17:225–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoddinott SN, Bass MJ. The dillman total design survey method. Can Fam Phys. 1986;32:2366–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Leach MJ, Gillham D. Evaluation of the evidence-based practice attitude and utilization survey for complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:792–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Leach MJ, Gillham D. Are complementary medicine practitioners implementing evidence based practice? Complement Ther Med. 2011;19:128–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Terhorst L, Leach M, Bussières A, Evans R, Schneider MJ. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the evidence-based practice attitude and utilization survey. J Altern Complement Med. 2016;22:328–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Humphreys BK, Peterson CK. The Swiss master in Chiropractic medicine curriculum: preparing graduates to work together with medicine to improve patient care. J Chiropr Humanit. 2016;23:53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. de Luca KE, Gliedt JA, Fernandez M, Kawchuk G, Swain MS. The identity, role, setting, and future of chiropractic practice: a survey of Australian and New Zealand chiropractic students. J Chiropr Educ. 2018;32:115–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. World Federation of Chiropractic - Identity Consultation [https://www.wfc.org/website/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=93]

  58. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Arndt S, Turvey C, Andreasen NC. Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearman’s r versus Kendall’s tau correlation. J Psychiatr Res. 1999;33:97–104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. BMJ. 2002;324:1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. What is evidence-based medicine? Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002;31(521–526):vii.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Grol R, Wensing M. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004;180:S57-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bussières AE, Al Zoubi F, Stuber K, French SD, Boruff J, Corrigan J, Thomas A. Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16:216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Furnham A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality Individ Differ. 1986;7:385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Gottlieb M, Chung A, Battaglioli N, Sebok-Syer SS, Kalantari A. Impostor syndrome among physicians and physicians in training: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2020;54:116–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Klabunde CN, Willis GB, McLeod CC, Dillman DA, Johnson TP, Greene SM, Brown ML. Improving the quality of surveys of physicians and medical groups: a research agenda. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35:477–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Morris CJ, Cantrill JA, Weiss MC. GP survey response rate: a miscellany of influencing factors. Fam Pract. 2001;18:454–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Funkhouser E, Vellala K, Baltuck C, Cacciato R, Durand E, McEdward D, Sowell E, Theisen SE, Gilbert GH. Survey methods to optimize response rate in the national dental practice-based research network. Eval Health Prof. 2017;40:332–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Roxas B, Lindsay V. Social desirability bias in survey research on sustainable development in small firms: an exploratory analysis of survey mode effect. Bus Strateg Environ. 2012;21:223–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lukas Tauschek for support with data collection, ChiroSuisse for promoting the survey among members, Beatrice Wettstein, DC, Karin Mantel, DCM, Serafin Leemann, DC, Fritz Grossenbacher, MD, as well as friends and family for pilot testing of the survey, Lindsay Gorrell MChiroprac, PhD for proofreading the survey and all the Swiss chiropractors who took the time to fill in the survey.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Arlette Albisser

  2. Department of Chiropractic Medicine, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Arlette Albisser, Petra Schweinhardt & Mirjam Baechler

  3. Département Chiropratique, Université du Québec à, Trois-Rivières, Canada

    André Bussières

  4. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Québec, Canada

    André Bussières

Authors
  1. Arlette Albisser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petra Schweinhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. André Bussières
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mirjam Baechler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived the study. AA, PS and MB adapted the survey. AA analysed the data. AA, PS and MB interpreted the data. AA wrote the manuscript. AA, MB, PS and AB edited the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arlette Albisser.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was exempted from ethic requirements by the ethic commission of Kanton Zürich, as it did not fall within the scope of Swiss Federal Human Research Act (BASEC-Nr. Req-2021-00173). Participants were provided with study information in the survey cover sheet. The information contained the goal of the survey, estimated time to complete the survey and the anonymous nature of participation.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 10.

Table 10 International comparison sub-scores [9, 32, 33]
Full size table

Survey

Please note that the survey is not reported in its complete form but only the parts that were analysed and discussed in this work.

Demographic questions

figure a

Part A

On a scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, how would you rate your opinion on the following statements? (please select the best answer for each category).

figure b

Part B

On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being advanced, how would you rate your skills in the following areas? (please select one per skill area).

figure c

Part C

Please indicate in what setting you have received the most in-depth training in the following areas (please select the best answer for each category). If you select “other”, please write down your highest level of training/education in the space provided.

figure d

Part D

Please indicate how often you have performed the following activities over the last month (please select the best answer for each category).

figure e

Part E

On a scale ranging from "not a barrier" to major barrier", to what extent do the following factors prevent you from participating in evidence-based practice?

figure f

Part F

On a scale ranging from "not useful" to "very useful", to what extent would the following strategies assist you in participating in evidence-based practice?

figure g

Part G

(please select the best answer to the following questions)

figure h

Role and Identity

(please select the best answer to the following questions)

figure i

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albisser, A., Schweinhardt, P., Bussières, A. et al. Self-reported attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among Swiss chiropractors: a national survey. Chiropr Man Therap 30, 59 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00462-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00462-0

Keywords

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies

ISSN: 2045-709X