Licciardone John C
Osteopathic Research Center, University of North Texas Health Science Center-Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Worth, TX 76107, USA.
Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2007 Feb 8;1:7. doi: 10.1186/1750-4732-1-7.
The growth and acceptance of osteopathic physicians as conventional medical practitioners in the United States has also raised questions about the distinctive aspects of osteopathic medicine. Although the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and a focus on primary care are most often cited as rationales for the uniqueness of osteopathic medicine, an osteopathic professional identity remains enigmatic.
The fledgling basic osteopathic research efforts of the early and mid-twentieth century have not been sustained and expanded over time. Thus, there is presently a scarcity of basic mechanistic and translational research that can be considered to be uniquely osteopathic. To be sure, there have been advances in osteopathic clinical trials, particularly those involving OMT for low back pain. Meta-analysis of these low back pain trials has provided evidence that: (1) OMT affords greater pain reduction than active or placebo control treatments; (2) the effects of OMT are comparable regardless of whether treatment is provided by fully-licensed osteopathic physicians in the United States or by osteopaths in the United Kingdom; and (3) the effects of OMT increase over time. However, much more clinical research remains to be done. The planning and implementation of a large longitudinal study of the natural history and epidemiology of somatic dysfunction, including an OMT component, represents a much-needed step forward. Osteopathic medicine's use of OMT and its focus on primary care are not mutually exclusive aspects of its uniqueness. The intersection of these fundamental aspects of osteopathic medicine suggests that the profession may successfully adopt a generic strategy of "focused differentiation" to attain a competitive advantage in the health care arena. While there are both requisite demands and risks for the osteopathic profession in adopting such a strategy, these are reasonable in relation to the potential rewards to be attained. To help promote an osteopathic identity, "omtology" and its derivative terms are recommended in referring to the study of OMT.
The osteopathic profession should adopt a coherent strategy for developing and promoting its identity. Failure to do so will likely ensure that osteopathic medicine remains "stuck in the middle."
在美国,整骨疗法医生作为传统医学从业者的发展与被接受,也引发了关于整骨医学独特之处的问题。尽管整骨手法治疗(OMT)的应用以及对初级保健的关注常被视为整骨医学独特性的理由,但整骨医学的专业身份仍然难以捉摸。
20世纪早期和中期初出茅庐的整骨基础研究工作并未随着时间的推移而持续和扩展。因此,目前缺乏可被视为整骨医学独有的基础机制和转化研究。诚然,整骨临床试验取得了进展,尤其是那些涉及OMT治疗腰痛的试验。对这些腰痛试验的荟萃分析提供了以下证据:(1)与主动或安慰剂对照治疗相比,OMT能更有效地减轻疼痛;(2)无论治疗由美国的全科整骨疗法医生还是英国的整骨疗法医生提供,OMT的效果相当;(3)OMT的效果会随着时间的推移而增强。然而,仍有更多的临床研究有待开展。规划和实施一项关于躯体功能障碍自然史和流行病学的大型纵向研究,包括一个OMT组成部分,是向前迈出的非常必要的一步。整骨医学对OMT的应用及其对初级保健的关注并非其独特性的相互排斥的方面。整骨医学这些基本方面的交叉表明,该专业可能成功采用“聚焦差异化”的通用策略,以在医疗保健领域获得竞争优势。虽然整骨医学专业采用这种策略既有必要的要求也有风险,但相对于可能获得的潜在回报而言,这些都是合理的。为了帮助促进整骨医学身份认同,建议在提及OMT研究时使用“整骨手法治疗学”及其衍生术语。
整骨医学专业应采用连贯的策略来发展和推广其身份认同。否则可能会确保整骨医学仍然“处于中间状态”。