Bridging the Gap: A Tri-Campus Survey on Osteopathic Medical Student Confidence and Exposure in Applying OMT to Neurologic Conditions
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Start Date
17-4-2026 1:30 PM
End Date
17-4-2026 2:30 PM
Description
Introduction: Neurologic complaints (e.g., headache, concussion, cranial nerve dysfunction) are common in clinical practice, yet neurologically focused osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) training may be inconsistent, potentially limiting confidence and downstream utilization. While many physicians first encounter OMT’s benefits during preclinical education, structured exposure varies across learners.¹ Evidence suggests OMT can modulate autonomic nervous system activity and may improve select neurologic symptoms, though much of the clinical literature remains small-scale or case-based.²–⁷ Emerging interest in evidence-based OMT integration further motivates identifying actionable training gaps.⁸,⁹
Objective: To evaluate associations between training year, cranial instruction exposure, perceived barriers, and osteopathic medical students’ confidence in applying OMT to neurologic conditions.
Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed via Student Affairs email to osteopathic medical students (OMS I–IV) across PCOM’s three campuses in Spring 2025. The 14-item instrument included multiple-choice, open-ended items, and a 5-point Likert confidence scale (1 = not confident to 5 = very confident) aligned with prior survey constructs.¹⁰ Of ~800 eligible students, 180 complete responses were analyzed (22.5% response rate). Primary outcome was self-reported confidence in applying cranial and neurologically focused OMT. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc testing were used; Pearson correlation assessed association between training year and confidence. IRB exemption was granted (45 CFR 46.104(2); Protocol # H25030X).
Results: Confidence increased by training year: OMS I (M = 2.11, SD = 1.17), OMS II (M = 2.64, SD = 0.99), OMS III (M = 2.89, SD = 1.15), OMS IV (M = 3.12, SD = 1.12). Training year significantly influenced confidence (F(3,178) = 8.55, p < 0.001, η² = 0.13; moderate effect). Tukey testing showed OMS IV confidence exceeded OMS I (p < 0.001) and OMS II (p = 0.02). Barriers shifted with training: lack of confidence was most common (n = 115), peaking in OMS IV (n = 39) and OMS III (n = 29), while lack of training (n = 80) predominated in OMS I (n = 36). Time constraints increased from OMS I (n = 11) to OMS IV (n = 30). Formal cranial instruction was associated with higher confidence (instructed n = 135, M = 2.99, SD = 1.11; uninstructed n = 32, M = 1.63, SD = 0.91; unsure n = 11, M = 1.91, SD = 0.94), with a significant group effect (F(2,175) = 23.90, p < 0.001, η² = 0.21; large effect); instructed vs uninstructed showed a large standardized difference (Cohen’s d ≈ 1.26). Interest in additional neurologic OMT training was high (74%, n = 131). Training year correlated moderately with confidence (r = 0.47, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Student confidence in applying OMT to neurologic conditions increases with training year and is strongly associated with formal cranial instruction, yet barriers persist and evolve from foundational training gaps early to time and system-level constraints in clinical years. High demand for additional training supports earlier, structured neurology-focused OMM experiences reinforced by clinical mentorship and faculty development to reduce variability in exposure and strengthen consistent, high-quality OMT utilization.
Embargo Period
6-3-2026
Bridging the Gap: A Tri-Campus Survey on Osteopathic Medical Student Confidence and Exposure in Applying OMT to Neurologic Conditions
Philadelphia, PA
Introduction: Neurologic complaints (e.g., headache, concussion, cranial nerve dysfunction) are common in clinical practice, yet neurologically focused osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) training may be inconsistent, potentially limiting confidence and downstream utilization. While many physicians first encounter OMT’s benefits during preclinical education, structured exposure varies across learners.¹ Evidence suggests OMT can modulate autonomic nervous system activity and may improve select neurologic symptoms, though much of the clinical literature remains small-scale or case-based.²–⁷ Emerging interest in evidence-based OMT integration further motivates identifying actionable training gaps.⁸,⁹
Objective: To evaluate associations between training year, cranial instruction exposure, perceived barriers, and osteopathic medical students’ confidence in applying OMT to neurologic conditions.
Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed via Student Affairs email to osteopathic medical students (OMS I–IV) across PCOM’s three campuses in Spring 2025. The 14-item instrument included multiple-choice, open-ended items, and a 5-point Likert confidence scale (1 = not confident to 5 = very confident) aligned with prior survey constructs.¹⁰ Of ~800 eligible students, 180 complete responses were analyzed (22.5% response rate). Primary outcome was self-reported confidence in applying cranial and neurologically focused OMT. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc testing were used; Pearson correlation assessed association between training year and confidence. IRB exemption was granted (45 CFR 46.104(2); Protocol # H25030X).
Results: Confidence increased by training year: OMS I (M = 2.11, SD = 1.17), OMS II (M = 2.64, SD = 0.99), OMS III (M = 2.89, SD = 1.15), OMS IV (M = 3.12, SD = 1.12). Training year significantly influenced confidence (F(3,178) = 8.55, p < 0.001, η² = 0.13; moderate effect). Tukey testing showed OMS IV confidence exceeded OMS I (p < 0.001) and OMS II (p = 0.02). Barriers shifted with training: lack of confidence was most common (n = 115), peaking in OMS IV (n = 39) and OMS III (n = 29), while lack of training (n = 80) predominated in OMS I (n = 36). Time constraints increased from OMS I (n = 11) to OMS IV (n = 30). Formal cranial instruction was associated with higher confidence (instructed n = 135, M = 2.99, SD = 1.11; uninstructed n = 32, M = 1.63, SD = 0.91; unsure n = 11, M = 1.91, SD = 0.94), with a significant group effect (F(2,175) = 23.90, p < 0.001, η² = 0.21; large effect); instructed vs uninstructed showed a large standardized difference (Cohen’s d ≈ 1.26). Interest in additional neurologic OMT training was high (74%, n = 131). Training year correlated moderately with confidence (r = 0.47, p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Student confidence in applying OMT to neurologic conditions increases with training year and is strongly associated with formal cranial instruction, yet barriers persist and evolve from foundational training gaps early to time and system-level constraints in clinical years. High demand for additional training supports earlier, structured neurology-focused OMM experiences reinforced by clinical mentorship and faculty development to reduce variability in exposure and strengthen consistent, high-quality OMT utilization.