Clinical characteristics of Australian osteopaths who teach: A national sample




osteopathic medicine, training, university teacher attributes, clinical teaching


Background: Health professionals involved in teaching future practitioners have been studied to some extent, but our knowledge of their clinical characteristics is variable. Our study sought to profile the clinical characteristics of osteopaths who teach in the three Australian universities delivering pre-professional osteopathy education.

Materials: This study is a secondary analysis of data collected via the Australian Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) project. Descriptive statistics were generated for each of the 27-item questionnaire variables. For binary responses, unadjusted odds ratios were calculated, and for continuous variables, independent t-tests were used. Backward step-wise regression modelling was used to identify significant characteristics associated with university teaching in osteopathy. 

Results: The survey demonstrated 9.9% of Australian osteopaths reported being involved in university teaching. Compared to non-teaching survey respondents, the osteopaths involved in university teaching were more likely to be female (OR 1.56), older (p < 0.01) and in clinical practice for longer (p < 0.01) but report fewer patient care hours (p < 0.01) and patient visits per week (p < 0.01). Osteopaths involved in university teaching were also more likely to be involved in research (OR 18.54) and clinical supervision (OR 12.39). They also reported a broader range of patient presentations and therapeutic modalities than their counterparts.

Conclusions: This nationally representative survey demonstrates a small percentage of the Australian osteopathy profession are engaged in university teaching. Our secondary analysis has highlighted several characteristics associated with involvement in university teaching that begin to shed light on the composition of the Australian osteopathy teaching workforce. This data may inform development of a skilled and experienced teaching workforce.


Adams. J., Sibbritt, D., Steel, A., & Peng, W. (2018). A workforce survey of Australian osteopathy: Analysis of a nationally-representative sample of osteopaths from the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) project. BMC Health Services Research, 18, Article 352.

Australasian Osteopathic Accreditation Council (AOAC). Program accreditation. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from

Coaldrake, P. (2019). What’s in a name? Review of the higher education provider category standards: Final report.

Dahlstrom, J., Dorai-Raj, A., McGill, D., Owen, C., Tymms, K., & Watson, D. A. R. (2005). What motivates senior clinicians to teach medical students? BMC Medical Education, 5, Article 27.

Fitzgerald, K., & Vaughan, B. (2016). A snap-shot of attrition from the osteopathy profession in Australia. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 22, 33–39.

Gibson, S. J., Porter, J., Anderson, A., Bryce, A., Dart, J., Kellow, N., Meiklejohn, S., Volders, E., Young, A., & Palermo, C. (2019). Clinical educators’ skills and qualities in allied health: A systematic review. Medical Education, 53(5), 432–442.

Goldie, J., Dowie, A., Goldie, A., Cotton, P., & Morrison J. (2015). What makes a good clinical student and teacher? An exploratory study. BMC Medical Education, 15, Article 40.

Hu, W. C. Y., McColl, G. J., Thistlethwaite, J. E., Schuwirth, L. W. T., & Wilkinson, T. (2013). Where is the next generation of medical educators? Medical Journal of Australia, 198(1), 8–9.

McLeod, G. A., Murphy, M., Henare, T. M., & Dlabik, B. (2018). Work-related musculoskeletal injuries among Australian osteopaths: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 27, 14–22.

Orrock, P. (2009). Profile of members of the Australian Osteopathic Association: Part 2. The patients. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 12(4), 128–139.

Osteopathy Board of Australia. (2018). Statistics. Received August 23, 2018, from

Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27–56.

Sutkin, G., Wagner, E., Harris, I., & Schiffer R. (2008). What makes a good clinical teacher in medicine? A review of the literature. Academic Medicine, 83(5), 452–466.

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Authority. (2015). 3.2 staffing. Retrieved May 10, 2020, from

Van Lankveld, T., Schoonenboom, J., Volman, M., Croiset, G., & Beishuizen, J. (2017). Developing a teacher identity in the university context: A systematic review of the literature. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 325–342.

Vaughan, B. (2020). Clinical educator self-efficacy, self-evaluation and its relationship with student evaluations of clinical teaching. BMC Medical Education, 20, Article 347.

Vaughan, B., Fleischmann, M., Fitzgerald, K., Grace, S., McLaughlin, P., Jolly, B., & Trumble, S. (2020). Profile of an allied health clinical supervision workforce: Results from a nationally representative Australian practice-based research network. Health Professions Education, 6(3), 376–385.

Vaughan, B., Macfarlane, C., & Florentine, P. (2014). Clinical education in the osteopathy program at Victoria University. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 17(3), 199–205.




How to Cite

Orrock, P., Vaughan, B., Fleischmann, M., & Fitzgerald, K. (2021). Clinical characteristics of Australian osteopaths who teach: A national sample. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-Professional Journal, 22(3), 94–109.



Short Report