International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2006/03, 9(1):46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijosm.2006.01.024, type of study: ,exs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Full text    (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746068906000265)

Keywords:

cranio-sacral osteopathy [231]
explorative study [28]
OMT [3924]
osteopathic manipulative treatment [3945]
patient perception [5]
physician-patient relations [104]

Abstract:

Introduction There is ongoing debate within the osteopathic profession about the validity and even the place of osteopathy in the cranial field (OCF) within the spectrum of techniques practiced and taught by osteopaths.1, 2, 3, 4 Design Blinded, quasi-experimental design employing interpretive description of subject responses on post-treatment debriefing interview.5 Methods The study was approved by the Unitec Research and Ethics Committee. Five volunteers were randomly assigned to experience 2 treatment sessions with a registered osteopath experienced in OCF. The practitioner remained silent during both sessions. An “intention” session involved the practitioner employing standard cranial techniques (utilising a non-structural model of OCF) with the aim of achieving a “still point”; the alternate session (“non-intention” session) involved the practitioner using the same holds but actively trying to disengage their therapeutic intention, instead they employed a distractive strategy (reading a document out of sight of the subject). Subjects Volunteers were recruited via a sample of convenience from the Unitec New Zealand School of Contemporary Dance. All subjects were naïve to OCF, and had no previous knowledge or experience of OCF prior to the study. Outcome Measures After each session all volunteers underwent a semi-structured interview in which they were asked to recall impressions, thoughts and feelings from the session; participants' responses were recorded onto audiotape and the responses transcribed for later analysis. The interviewer was blinded to group allocation (‘Intention’ or ‘Non-intention’ session). Data were reviewed and analysed under two conditions. Data were first analysed without knowledge of group allocation, before a second analysis where allocation was revealed. Results Initial data analysis suggests that participants' perception and experience of the encounter varies according to which intervention was received. Conclusions This is a useful line of inquiry employing a novel approach, and provides a basis for further investigation and a potential rationale for a larger trial.