Dataset Information

Chiropractic in the United States Military Health System: A 25th-Anniversary Celebration of the Early Years.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this report is to record noteworthy events that occurred during the early years of chiropractic in the United States Military Health System (MHS).

Methods

We used mixed methods to create this historical account, including documents, artifacts, research papers, and reports from personal experiences.

Results

Chiropractic care was first included in the MHS in 1995, after years of legislative activity. The initial program was a 3-year study of the feasibility and advisability of integrating chiropractic in the MHS. This period was called the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Project; 20 pioneering chiropractors began their MHS journeys at 10 military bases in fiscal year 1995. The Demonstration Project was extended for 2 more years to gather research data, and 3 additional military facilities were added during those years to accomplish that purpose. The Demonstration Project concluded in 1999. In 2000, Congress approved the development of permanent chiropractic services and benefits for members of the uniformed services. These new clinics opened in 2002.

Conclusion

This is the first article to chronicle the history of chiropractic in the MHS, and highlights some of the important events in the early years of chiropractors working within the MHS. Because of the efforts of the early MHS chiropractors to pave the way for a permanent chiropractic benefit for the deserving members of the United States uniformed services, chiropractic care is now offered at more than 60 United States military facilities.

SUBMITTER: Green BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8074685 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The CCN family of proteins is composed of six members, which are now well recognized as major players in fundamental biological processes. The first three CCN proteins discovered were designated CYR61, CTGF, and NOV because of the context in which they were identified. Both CYR61 and CTGF were discovered in normal cells, whereas NOV was identified in tumors. Soon after their discovery, it was established that they shared important and unique structural features and distinct biological properties. Based on these structural considerations, the three proteins were proposed to belong to a family that was designated CCN by P. Bork. Hence the CCN1, CCN2 and CCN3 acronyms. The family grew to six members a few years later with the description of three proteins WISP-1, WISP-2 and WISP-3 (CCN4, CCN5 and CCN6), that shared the same tetramodular and conserved structural features. With the functions of the CCN proteins being uncovered, this raised a nomenclature problem. A scientific committee convened in Saint Malo (France) proposed to apply the CCN nomenclature to the six members of the family. Although the unified nomenclature was proposed in order to avoid serious misconceptions and lack of precision associated with the use of the old acronyms, the acceptance of the new acronyms has taken time. In order to evaluate how the use of disparate nomenclatures have had an impact on the CCN protein field, we conducted a survey of the articles that have been published in this area since the discovery of the first CCN proteins and inception of the field. We report in this manuscript the confusion and serious deleterious scientific consequences that have stemmed from a disorganized usage of several unrelated acronyms. The conclusions that we have reached call for a unification that needs to overcome personal habits and feelings. Instead of allowing the CCN field to fully crystalize and gain the recognition that it deserves the usage of many different acronyms represents a danger that everyone must fight against in order to avoid its deliquescence. We hope that the considerations discussed in the present article will encourage all authors working in the CCN field to work jointly and succeed in building a strong and coherent CCN scientific community that will benefit all of us.

Project description:BackgroundSpine related disorders entail biological (somatic), psychological, and social factors. Though biological factors are often emphasized, psychosocial considerations may not be receiving proper attention in the chiropractic field. Chiropractors treat spine complaints and therefore should be trained in the full spectrum of the biopsychosocial model. This study examines the use of psychosocial related terminology in United States doctor of chiropractic program (DCP) curricula, the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) standards, and the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) test plans.MethodsNineteen academic course catalogs, CCE curricular standards and meta-competencies, and NBCE test plans were studied. Terms containing "psycho", "soci", "mental", "econom", "cultur", "emotion", "determinant", "public", "communit", "neighbor", "behav", or "cognitive" were identified in each document. Frequency of use, context of use, thematic categorization, and percentage of use compared to overall content were calculated and described.Results'Public' is the most commonly used psychosocial related term in DCP curricula. 'Determinant' was used in 1 DCP curriculum. The number of courses with psychosocial related terminology in course titles and course descriptions ranged from 1 to 5 and 3 to 12, respectively. Most terms are found in clinical skills, special populations, and other miscellaneous courses, with fewer terms found in psychology and public health courses. Terminology use in course titles and descriptions compared to overall content ranges from 3.40 to 14.86%. CCE uses terminology 17 times across 5 (out of 8) total meta-competencies. NBCE includes terminology in test plans I and II, but not III or IV.ConclusionsDespite evidence suggesting the influential role of psychosocial factors in determinants of health and healthcare delivery, these factors are poorly reflected in United States DCP curricula. This underappreciation is further evidenced by the lack of representation of psychosocial terminology in NBCE parts III and IV test plans. The reasons for this are theoretical; lack of clarity or enforcement of CCE meta-competencies may contribute.