Abstract Context Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are among the most prevalent causes of disability globally, contributing significantly to diminished quality of life and rising healthcare costs. While pharmacological treatments and physical therapy remain standard, alternative modalities such as osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) have emerged as promising nonpharmacologic options. However, public awareness of OMM remains limited, and misconceptions persist, particularly regarding its distinction from chiropractic care. This study aimed to assess public perception of OMM and its effectiveness in treating MSDs, with the goal of informing strategies to enhance understanding and utilization of osteopathic principles. Objectives The objectives of this study were to evaluate the public’s perception, awareness, and experiences with OMM in the treatment of MSDs, and to identify knowledge gaps that can be addressed through educational outreach. This study also examined how demographic and socioeconomic factors influence awareness and utilization of OMM. Insights gained will guide the development of targeted educational materials to enhance public understanding, to promote the distinctiveness of osteopathic medicine, and to clarify the role of OMM in MSD care. Methods A nationwide, web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted targeting US adults aged 18 years and older. Demographic data collected included age, location, race, ethnicity, income, marital and employment status, and number of children. The survey, administered through Random Device Engagement (RDE) methodology, was distributed within mobile apps to a randomized sample of users who opted in through nonmonetary incentives. Questions assessed knowledge of OMM, previous experiences with osteopathic care, perceived effectiveness in managing MSDs, and interest in nonpharmacological treatments. Quantitative analysis included frequency distributions and descriptive statistics to characterize awareness, perceptions, and utilization of OMM. Results A total of 174 valid responses were analyzed after the exclusion of incomplete entries. Respondents represented a demographically diverse population across the United States. The most frequently cited uses of OMM were for back pain (n=70, 40.2 %), neck pain (n=58, 33.3 %), arthritis (n=38, 21.8 %), and chronic pain (n=33, 19.0 %). Regarding effectiveness, 68 respondents (39.1 %) rated OMM as “Very Effective,” and 30 (17.2 %) rated it as “Extremely Effective.” The key benefits included pain relief, improved mobility, reduced medication use, and noninvasiveness. Awareness of osteopathic distinctiveness remained low, with many respondents conflating OMM with chiropractic care. Conclusions Findings highlight a favorable perception of OMM among those familiar with its use in MSD management, yet widespread knowledge gaps persist among the general public. The data support the need for targeted educational efforts that promote OMM as a safe, effective, evidence-based alternative to pharmacologic interventions. This work strengthens the case for broader integration of osteopathic principles in mainstream care and underscores the importance of outreach in reinforcing osteopathic distinctiveness. Future steps will involve the development of educational materials to address misconceptions and improve access to OMM services.
Abstract Context Early clinical exposure (ECE), especially within osteopathic medicine, helps bridge the gap between medical theory and practical skills by giving students the chance to apply osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) early in their training. This enhances their competency and builds a stronger connection to osteopathic principles. Current literature highlights that the early use of OMT in osteopathic institutions motivates students to continue utilizing their skill set, yet few programs offer real-world, hands-on experience outside of lectures and practicals. This paper describes and evaluates one of these programs, a student-led, faculty-supervised clinic focused on enhancing early OMT skills and confidence. Objectives This study aimed to describe this student-run, faculty-supervised clinic and to document the most common somatic dysfunctions and the OMT utilized, and to compare pre-and posttreatment pain scores for participants. Methods This study was a retrospective chart review of 713 volunteer patient visits over a 3-year period, from the Fall semester of 2022 to the Spring semester of 2025. Data collected included volunteer demographics such as age, date of birth, gender identifier, status (faculty, staff, or student), chief complaint, body regions with somatic dysfunction, OMT modalities, and pre-and posttreatment Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize the demographic frequencies to characterize the clinic’s operational impact. NPRS scores were compared before and after treatment, utilizing a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test for nonparametric data to assess the effect of OMT on volunteer-reported pain levels. Results Of the 713 volunteer patient visits at the clinic, 533 (74.8 %) were students, 149 (20.9 %) were staff, and 14 (2.0 %) were faculty. Volunteers’ ages ranged from 21 to 78 years, with a median age of 25.3 years. The most treated body regions were the cervical and thoracic regions, whereas the abdomen was the least treated region. On average, four body regions were treated per volunteer. The most utilized OMT modalities were the muscle energy technique and myofascial release, with lymphatic and visceral techniques being the least frequently utilized. An average of four modalities were utilized per volunteer. Posttreatment NPRS levels were consistently lower than the pretreatment scores (p<0.0001). Conclusions The data from this study provide insight into the most encountered diagnoses in a more real-world clinical setting for our students and the corresponding treatments most frequently applied. Although not explicitly investigated in this retrospective chart review, this student-run, faculty-supervised clinic allowed students to treat patients over 700 times in 3 years, presumably preparing them better to utilize OMT in their future clinical practice. Additionally, consistently improved patient-reported pain scale scores suggest the clinical effectiveness of the students’ OMT interventions.
Abstract Context Obesity is a significant public health concern, with the United States experiencing some of the highest obesity rates worldwide. Despite the widespread prevalence and negative impacts on patient health, obesity education in medical school curricula remains insufficient. This training deficit contributes to a lack of preparedness among medical students in the management of obesity, leading to healthcare provider bias and inadequate patient care. Objectives This study aims to identify potential gaps in obesity education within US osteopathic medical schools by assessing current osteopathic medical students’ knowledge, confidence, and perceptions of medical school obesity education. Methods A quantitative cross-sectional survey was distributed to osteopathic medical students across all 42 US osteopathic medical schools through the Student Osteopathic Medical Association (SOMA) weekly emails, SOMA internal chapter emails, and SOMA social media accounts from October 2024 to December 2024. The inclusion criteria were that participants had to be currently enrolled first-, second-, third-, and fourth-year osteopathic medical students and provide informed consent. The responses were summarized utilizing descriptive analysis. Each survey question was analyzed independently, considering the varying number of responses received per question. Results A total of 208 students participated in the survey. Out of the 208 respondents, most students felt somewhat prepared (38.5 %) or unprepared/very unprepared (32.7 %) to manage obesity and provide nutrition education in the clinical setting. Due to the number of participants, the responses are considered in aggregate and not grouped by cohort year. In addition, there was nearly an even split among students regarding comfort in discussing obesity and weight management with patients, with 30.6 % stating that they are uncomfortable or very uncomfortable, 37.4 % reporting being somewhat comfortable, and 32.0 % feeling comfortable or very comfortable. Only 14.1 % of students reported having standardized patient encounters regarding obesity counseling, with most of these encounters (55.2 %) lasting less than 30 min. Regarding comfort discussing weight bias and stigma, 59.8 % of the students reported feeling somewhat comfortable, comfortable, or very comfortable discussing weight bias and stigma, while 40.2 % were slightly uncomfortable or not comfortable addressing the topic with patients. Given the limited sample size and response rate, these findings are exploratory and limited by a low response rate and potential response bias. Conclusions These findings suggest potential gaps in obesity education among the responding osteopathic medical students. While limited by sample size and possible response bias, the results highlight opportunities for strengthening obesity-related curricula, particularly in experiential learning and weight bias training.
