Advanced search

Search results      

Is there an Unanimous Opinion on William Garner Sutherland’s Biodynamic Model among Osteopaths in Certain Parts of Germany?
Gehrmann, W. [1]

Journal: Unpublished MSc thesis Wiener Schule für Osteopathie, Date: 2009/02, Pages: 126, type of study: cross sectional study

Free full text   (https://www.osteopathicresearch.org/s/orw/item/2937)

Keywords:

biodynamics [12]
cranio-sacral osteopathy [158]
Germany [121]
cross sectional study [597]
W.G. Sutherland [4]
WSO [433]

Abstract:

Study Design: National quantitative social research in osteopathical basics. Outline: WG Sutherland’s Biomechanic Model seems to be viewed similarily by osteopaths in theory and practice, a fact which does not apply to the Biodynamic Model. The difference between these two models does not seem to be clear among osteopaths in tribute to Still and Sutherland on the one hand and/or approaches from other osteopaths or different professions on the other hand. Exactly because of this constellation several questions arise: “Is there a general opinion about the Biodynamic Model at all?“, „Who has this opinion?“, „Are there different views on the Biodynamic Model?“ and „What is the overall knowledge about Sutherland’s Biodynamic Model?“ Answers to these questions could be helpful to differentiate certain osteopathic approaches from others; moreover they could be of help to get an easier approach to osteopathy at all. Research Question & Objective: Is there a unanimous opinion on William Garner Sutherland’s Biodynamic Model among osteopaths in certain parts of Germany? Hypothesis: There is no unanimous opinion concerning WG Sutherland’s the Biodynamic Model among osteopaths in certain parts of Germany. Relevance for Patients: If patients visit an osteopath they should be certain to get osteopathic treatment and not an invisible different approach that only looks like osteopathic treatment. Relevance for Osteopathy: A potential borderline to step out of osteopathy should be discovered. This is of specific necessity concerning the biodynamic cranial work, because only the mental direction of any visualization decides whether it is in line with Still’s and Sutherland’s principles or not. Methodology: National quantitative social research in osteopathical basics started in December 2007 and finished in December 2008 by internet/email questionnaire. One pretest (N=4) was conducted in January 2008. N=274 osteopaths from certain parts of Germany were interviewed. Timeframe of investigation was March 2008; the questionnaire was sent out on February 28, 2008 and a second call for participation was sent out on March 9, 2008. The questionnaire was structured as a big block system containing personal information, the time of duration, 15 questions (10 closed and five semi closed) and one additional free text area for comments. Results from Theoretical Part: WG Sutherland described two models in cranial osteopathy: a Biomechanic and a Biodynamic Model. The only difference between the two models is The Potency of the Tide which turns the biomechanic approach into a biodynamic approach. Within Sutherland’s Biomechanic Model the correction of osteopathic dysfunctions is done by ligaments and membranes. Concerning his Biodynamic Model the correction of dysfunctions should be done by something invisible inside the body fluids. The characters of the body fluids which should be responsible for the correction are labelled as The Potency of the Tide and they should get their power from The Breath of Life from Genesis. The expressions The Potency of the Tide and The Breath of Life should be palpable as a tide within a tide of the dynamics in body fluids with a frequence of eight to 12 motions per minute. Sutherland called this a Primary Respiratory Mechanism (PRM). Sutherland’s models can also be found in Still’s principles. Analysis and comparisons of their individual behavior, their specific terminology and their individual use was investigated because Sutherland never used the term Biodynamic. Results from Practical Part: N(g)=274 osteopaths received the questionnaire. N=71 were returned and had to be reduced by N=11 drop outs. A total of N(t)=60 was analysed in detail. The overall participation was 25,90% with 4,01% drop outs. Total participation was 21,89% consisting of 29 female and 31 male osteopaths. Concerning the basics of Sutherland and Still the study group showed a high level of unanimous opinion or knowledge. 16,66% (N=10) osteopaths added free text together with the semi closed question No. 15, only two comments were accepted. Sutherland’s Biodynamic Model is unanimously known and accepted among osteopaths, but without a clear perspective on the practical aspects of the treatment. N=6 added comments at the end of the form. The hypothesis could not be verified because there is a unanimous opinion on Sutherland’s Biodynamic Model among osteopaths in certain parts of Germany. Critical Reflections / Perspectives / Conclusions: To use a digital questionnaire is useful but also risky. If the questions are not well prepared or not thought through thoroughly participants might be lost. At the same time there is a chance of losing additional participants if mistakes are made on a formal level, i.e. using less or wrong digital features. Thus, there is an additional chance to fail and/or to reduce the validity of the results. The principles of Still and Sutherland and osteopathy in general are viewed much more clearly now. This has been mainly influenced by the work on linguistics and social psychological principles and will be extended in the future.

Search results      

 
 
 






  • Impressum • Legal notice • Datenschutz •


ostlib.de/data_agsqdewnzprfvxtucbjk



Supported by

OSTLIB recommends