IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v55y2002i12p2141-2148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Shirley M.
  • Kurtz, Margot E.

Abstract

Data were gathered through a random national mail survey of 3000 US osteopathic physicians. Nine hundred and fifty-five questionnaires were usable for analysis. Through open-ended questions, osteopathic physicians identified philosophic and practice differences that distinguished them from their allopathic counterparts, and whether they believed the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of the osteopathic profession, was appropriate in their specialty. Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the question regarding philosophic differences answered positively, and 41 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that holistic medicine was the most distinguishing characteristic of their profession. In response to the question on practice differences, 59 percent of the respondents believed they practiced differently from allopathic physicians, and 72 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that the osteopathic approach to treatment was a primary distinguishing feature, mainly incorporating the application of OMT, a caring doctor-patient relationship, and a hands-on style. More respondents who specialized in osteopathic manipulative medicine and family practice perceived differences between them and their allopathic counterparts than did other practitioners. Almost all respondents believed OMT was an efficacious treatment, but 19 percent of all respondents felt use of OMT was inappropriate in their specialty. Thirty-one percent of the pediatricians and 38 percent of the non-primary care specialists shared this view. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents had a self-identification as osteopathic physicians, but less than half felt their patients identified them as such. When responses are considered in the context of all survey respondents (versus only those who provided open-ended responses) not a single philosophic concept or resultant practice behavior had concurrence from more than a third of the respondents as distinguishing osteopathic from allopathic medicine. Rank and file osteopathic practitioners seem to be struggling for a legitimate professional identification. The outcome of this struggle is bound to have an impact on health care delivery in the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson, Shirley M. & Kurtz, Margot E., 2002. "Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2141-2148, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:12:p:2141-2148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00357-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anne-Sylvie Bill & Julie Dubois & Jérôme Pasquier & Bernard Burnand & Pierre-Yves Rodondi, 2020. "Osteopathy in the French-speaking part of Switzerland: Practitioners’ profile and scope of back pain management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Franklyn, Grace, 2023. "“We're IMGs, and we're often seen as human garbage outside of primary care”: A qualitative investigation of dynamic status hierarchy construction online by medical trainees," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:55:y:2002:i:12:p:2141-2148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.