IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Italian Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: How osteopaths work

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Cerritelli
  • Giacomo Consorti
  • Patrick L S van Dun
  • Jorge E Esteves
  • Paola Sciomachen
  • Massimo Valente
  • Eleonora Lacorte
  • Nicola Vanacore
  • on behalf of the OPERA-IT Group

Abstract

The scope of practice of the osteopathic profession in Italy is underreported. The first part of the present study investigated the Italian osteopaths' profile, focusing on the socio-demographic information and geographical distribution together with the main characteristics of their education. The OPERA-IT study highlighted that the majority of respondents declared to work as sole practitioners (58.4%), while the remaining declared to work as part of a team. Since teamwork and networking are recognized as fundamental aspects of healthcare, the present study aims to compare the osteopathic practice, diagnostic and treatment modalities of osteopaths who work as a sole practitioner and osteopaths who work as part of a team to highlight possible differences. Moreover, patients' characteristics will be presented. The OPERA-IT study population was chosen to provide a representative sample. A web campaign was set up to inform the Italian osteopaths before the beginning of the study. The OPERA IT study used a previously tested questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated into Italian following the World Health Organization recommendation. The questionnaire was composed of 57 items grouped in five sections, namely: socio-demographics, osteopathic education and training, working profile, organization, and management of the clinical practice and patient profile. The survey was delivered online through a dedicated platform. The survey was completed by 4,816 individuals. Osteopaths who work as sole practitioners represented the majority of the sample (n = 2814; 58.4%). Osteopaths who work as part of a team declared to collaborate mostly with physiotherapists (n = 1121; 23.3%), physicians with speciality (n = 1040; 21.6%), and other osteopaths (n = 943; 19.6%). The two groups showed heterogeneous characteristics. Significative differences were observed in all the factors, namely: geographical distribution, age, gender, training, working contract and working place, daily consultations and time for each consultation, fees, and the average waiting period to book an appointment. The principal component analysis supported a ten-component model and explained 80.5% of the total variance. The analysis showed that osteopaths working as sole practitioners have an increased probability (OR = 0.91; CI 95%: 0.88–0.94; p

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Cerritelli & Giacomo Consorti & Patrick L S van Dun & Jorge E Esteves & Paola Sciomachen & Massimo Valente & Eleonora Lacorte & Nicola Vanacore & on behalf of the OPERA-IT Group, 2020. "The Italian Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: How osteopaths work," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235539
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235539
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235539&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235539?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0235539. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.