This survey assessed chiropractic (DC) and naturopathic “doctors”‘ (ND) knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour with respect to the pediatric patients in their practice. Cross-sectional surveys were developed in collaboration with DC and ND educators. Surveys were sent to randomly selected DCs and NDs in Ontario, Canada in 2004, and a national online survey was conducted in 2014. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, non-parametric tests, and linear regression.
Response rates for DCs were n = 172 (34%) in 2004, n = 553 (15.5%) in 2014, and for NDs, n = 171 (36%) in 2004, n = 162 (7%) in 2014. In 2014, 366 (78.4%) of DCs and 83 (61%) of NDs saw one or more paediatric patients per week. Paediatric training was rated as inadequate by most respondents in both 2004 and 2014, with most respondents (n = 643, 89.9%) seeking post-graduate training by 2014. About half of DCs (51.7% in 2004, 49.2% in 2014) and one fifth of NDs (21% in 2004 and 23% in 2014) reported they received no hands-on clinical paediatric training. Only a minority of practitioners felt their hands-on paediatric training was adequate (somewhat or very) for their needs: DCs: 10.6% in 2004, 15.6% in 2014; NDs: 10% in 2004 and 19% in 2014. Respondents’ comfort in treating children and youth is based on experience and post-graduate training. Both DCs and NDs that see children and youth in their practices address a broad array of paediatric health concerns, from well child care and preventative health, to mild and serious illness.
The authors included two ‘case studies’ of conditions frequently treated by DCs and NDs:
Case study 1: colic
DC practitioners’ primary treatment focus (314 respondents) would be to use spinal manipulation (78.3%) if physical assessment suggests utility, diet changes (14.6% for child, 6.1% for mom if breast feeding), and massage (16.9%). ND practitioners (95 respondents) would assess and treat primarily with diet changes (62% for child including prescribing probiotics; 48% for mom if breast feeding), homeopathy (46%), weak herbal or tea preparations (19%), and use topical castor oil (packs or massage) (18%). In 2014, 65.9% of DCs and 59% of NDs believe (somewhat or very much) that concurrent treatment by a medical practitioner would be of benefit; 64.0% of DCs and 60% of NDs would refer the patient to another health care practitioner (practitioner type not specified).
Case study 2: acute otitis media
In 2014, almost all practitioners identified this as otitis media (in 2004, the DCs had a profession-specific question); DCs were more cautious about the value of their care for it relative to the NDs (DCs, 46.2% care will help patient very much, NDs, 95%). For treatment, DCs would primarily use spinal manipulation (98.5%) if indicated after assessment, massage (19.5%), dietary modifications (17.6%), and 3.8% would specifically refer to an MD for an antibiotic prescription. ND-preferred treatments were NHP products (79%), dietary modifications (66%), ear drops (60%), homeopathic remedies (18%), and 10% would prescribe antibiotics right away or after a few days. In 2014, 86.3% of DCs and 75% of NDs believe the patient would benefit (somewhat or very much) from concurrent treatment by a conventional medical practitioner; 81.7% of DCs and 58% of NDs would refer the patient to another health care provider.
The authors concluded that although the response rate in 2014 is low, the concerns identified a decade earlier remain. The majority of responding DCs and NDs see infants, children, and youth for a variety of health conditions and issues, but self-assess their undergraduate paediatric training as inadequate. We encourage augmented paediatric educational content be included as core curriculum for DCs and NDs and suggest collaboration with institutions/organizations with expertise in paediatric education to facilitate curriculum development, especially in areas that affect patient safety.
I find these data positively scary:
- Despite calling themselves ‘doctors’, they are nothing of the sort.
- DCs and NCs are not adequately educated or trained to treat children.
- They nevertheless often do so, presumably because this constitutes a significant part of their income.
- Even if they felt confident to be adequately trained, we need to remember that their therapeutic repertoire is wholly useless for treating sick children effectively and responsibly.
- Therefore, harm to children is almost inevitable.
- To this, we must add the risk of incompetent advice from CDs and NDs – just think of immunisations.
The only conclusion I can draw is this: chiropractors and naturopaths should keep their hands off our kids!
9 Responses to Chiropractors and naturopaths should keep their hands off our kids, if you ask me
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
http://www.workcompwire.com/2017/07/ohio-bwc-announces-new-rule-rest-and-rehab-before-lumbar-surgery/
As the twig is bent so grows the tree.
I regret the absence from my ongoing correspondence but I’ve been too busy managing patients. I hopefully will soon be responding to all my
“friends” in digital land.
What on earth does this link have to do with whether or not two types of quack are competent to treat children?! Even as a notional tu quoque it isn’t relevant to the topic of this thread.
…and trees relate to humans in what way, again? Did I miss something?
Ah… Welcome back Mr. Epstein.
We thought you had run away.
Perhaps you can now reply to the simple question last repeated on September 1st
You promised to reply to “over the weekend” but then we heard nothing more from you.
he had a long weekend!
To quote from the Swedish Patientsäkerhetslag (Patient Safety Act) –
“Chapter 5 Restrictions on the right of non-health professionals to take certain health care measures
Section 1 Other than healthcare professionals no-one may professionally examine another’s health condition or treat someone else for illness or equivalent condition by taking or prescribing any of the following measures for prevention, cure or mitigating purposes:
1. treat such infectious diseases as according to infectious diseases (2004: 168) are notifiable diseases,
2. treat cancer and other malignant tumors, diabetes, epilepsy or conditions in connection with pregnancy or childbirth;
3. examine or treat another person during general anesthesia or during local anesthesia by injection of anesthetics or under hypnosis,
4. treat someone else with radiological methods,
5. Without personal examination of the person seeking him or her, provide written advice or instructions for treatment;
6. examine or treat children under eight years; or
7. try out contact lenses.”
A similar law, written in the correct way, would put an end to this in most jurisdictions.
I dont know much about DC training, but Naturopathic Doctor (ND) training in the USA is the same as an MD in the basic medical sciences. For treatments they are not confined to drugs and surgery like MDs. But they are taught them to a more limited extent. But they are also taught more natural therapies. So I would be willing to bet that most parents if they knew, would prefer an ND for most situations. There were some studies recently that found that each round of antibiotics taken increased the incidence of chronic disease. https://www.belmarrahealth.com/long-term-antibiotic-use-women-increases-risk-chronic-diseases/ MDs should keep their hands off our children, and maybe our adults too, if you ask me.
THANKS AGAIN
for displaying you total ignorance.
perhaps you should read a bit, for instance this:
https://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/