The Italian Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross sectional survey.

The prevalence of osteopathic practitioners, their professional profile and features of their clinical practice, particularly where statutory regulation does not yet exist, are still significantly underreported. The Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) project was developed as an European-based census dedicated to profiling the osteopathic profession across Europe. The present study aimed to describe the osteopathic practitioners and the profession in Italy. A voluntary, online based, closed-ended survey was distributed across Italy in the period between February and June 2017. An e-based campaign was set up to reach the Italian osteopathic professionals. Participants were asked to complete the forms by filling in the information regarding the demographics, working status and professional activities, education, consultation fees, patient complaints, treatment and management. The survey was completed by 4816 individuals. 196 people started the survey but did not finish, which corresponds to a 4% attrition rate. The majority of respondents were males (66.7%). The modal age group was 30-39 (40.0%). 73.8% of respondents had a previous academic degree, mainly in the fields of sports science (36.4%) and physiotherapy (25.3%). 25.6% declared not to have a previous academic degree. The majority of respondents declared to work alone (58.4%), while the remaining declared to work in association with other professionals. The osteopaths /citizens ratio was 8.0 osteopaths/100,000 citizens. The profile of osteopaths in Italy seems to be characterised by a self-employed young adult male working mostly as a sole practitioner, who has been trained as osteopath through a part-time curriculum and had a previous degree mostly in the fields of sports science or physiotherapy. These results provide important insights into the osteopathic profession in Italy. The varied professional educational backgrounds need to be considered with regard to the implementation of a professional licensing process and future pre-registration education in the country. The number of respondents is an estimate of the actual number of Italian osteopaths. Only the completion of the regulatory process and the creation of the mandatory official register will allow to know the number of Italy based osteopaths

The Italian Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: How osteopaths work.

The scope of practice of the osteopathic profession in Italy is underreported. The first part of the present study investigated the Italian osteopaths' profile, focusing on the socio-demographic information and geographical distribution together with the main characteristics of their education. The OPERA-IT study highlighted that the majority of respondents declared to work as sole practitioners (58.4%), while the remaining declared to work as part of a team. Since teamwork and networking are recognized as fundamental aspects of healthcare, the present study aims to compare the osteopathic practice, diagnostic and treatment modalities of osteopaths who work as a sole practitioner and osteopaths who work as part of a team to highlight possible differences. Moreover, patients' characteristics will be presented. The OPERA-IT study population was chosen to provide a representative sample. A web campaign was set up to inform the Italian osteopaths before the beginning of the study. The OPERA IT study used a previously tested questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated into Italian following the World Health Organization recommendation. The questionnaire was composed of 57 items grouped in five sections, namely: socio-demographics, osteopathic education and training, working profile, organization, and management of the clinical practice and patient profile. The survey was delivered online through a dedicated platform. The survey was completed by 4,816 individuals. Osteopaths who work as sole practitioners represented the majority of the sample (n = 2814; 58.4%). Osteopaths who work as part of a team declared to collaborate mostly with physiotherapists (n = 1121; 23.3%), physicians with speciality (n = 1040; 21.6%), and other osteopaths (n = 943; 19.6%). The two groups showed heterogeneous characteristics. Significative differences were observed in all the factors, namely: geographical distribution, age, gender, training, working contract and working place, daily consultations and time for each consultation, fees, and the average waiting period to book an appointment. The principal component analysis supported a ten-component model and explained 80.5% of the total variance. The analysis showed that osteopaths working as sole practitioners have an increased probability (OR = 0.91; CI 95%: 0.88-0.94; p<0.01) of using systemic diagnostic and treatment techniques and have distinct clinical features with higher probability (OR = 0.92; 0.88-0.96; p<0.01) of spending less time with patients, being paid less but treating a higher number of patients per week. The most represented patients' age groups were 41-64 years old (n = 4452; 92.4%) and 21-40 years old (n = 4291; 89.1%). Similarly, the most reported new patients' age groups were 41-64 years old (n = 4221; 87.7%) and 21-40 years old (n = 3364; 69.9%). The most common presenting complaints were back pain, neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, sciatica, shoulder pain, and headaches. Osteopathic practice in Italy seems to be characterised by interprofessional collaboration, mostly with physiotherapists. Our results highlighted two different profiles in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and work modalities between osteopaths who work as sole practitioners and those who work as part of a team. Although according to the respondents, people of all ages consult Italian osteopaths, the majority of patients are adults. Most of them have been referred to osteopathy by other patients or acquaintances. Patients seek osteopathic care mostly for musculoskeletal related complaints

Linear correlation between DREEM and AAMC.

<p>Linear correlation between DREEM and AAMC.</p

Overall AAMC, overall and subscales DREEM differences between institutions.

<p>Overall AAMC, overall and subscales DREEM differences between institutions.</p

Generalised linear model for questionnaire domains.

<p>Education institutes in recognised countries are British School of Osteopathy, European School of Osteopathy and Institut des Hautes Etudes Ostéopathiques. SPL: Student Perception of Learning; SPT: Student Perception of Teacher; SAPS: Student academic self perception; SPA: Student Perception of Atmosphere; SSSP: Student Social Self Perception; в = Adjusted mean difference.</p><p>Generalised linear model for questionnaire domains.</p

DREEM scores range for general interpretation.

<p>DREEM scores range for general interpretation.</p

Flowchart of the institutions and students enrolled in the study.

<p>Flowchart of the institutions and students enrolled in the study.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field