Prevalence of Chiropractic-Specific Terminology on Chiropractors' Websites in the United Kingdom With Comparison to Australia: An Analysis of Samples

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of 5 chiropractic-specific terms on UK chiropractic websites to findings in a previous study in Australia and to provide an argument against the use of these terms. We searched websites belonging to chiropractors registered with the General Chiropractic Council for 5 terms: ( / ), ( / ), and (Intelligence). Of 3239 websites, 326 were sampled. Each page was searched, and terms were counted only if used in a chiropractic-specific context. Term occurrence and frequency were recorded. The data were analyzed using a single-sample χ goodness-of-fit test for unequal proportions. The results were compared to those of our prior Australian study, using the χ test of homogeneity to determine the differences between samples. At least 1 of the 5 chiropractic-specific terms was found on 245 (75%) of UK websites. ( / ) was found on 222 (68%) of UK websites compared to 283 (77%) in Australia; on 67 (5%) of UK sites compared to 199 (33%) in Australia; ( / ) on 30 (9%) of UK sites compared to 71 (19%) in Australia; on 17 (5%) of UK sites compared to 104 (28%) in Australia; and on 10 (3%) of UK sites compared to 39 (11%) in Australia. A χ test found that the terms were not equally distributed in the two samples,  = 404.080, < .001. In the discussion, we explain why we feel that chiropractic-specific terms should be abandoned and standard biomedical terms used. In the sample of websites we evaluated in this study, the majority in the United Kingdom used the 5 chiropractic-specific terms that we searched for. The terms were used less frequently than on websites in Australia but were in a similar order of prevalence. [Abstract copyright: © 2021 by National University of Health Sciences.]