Stakeholders’ perspectives on curriculum content in an undergraduate chiropractic pediatric curriculum: A nested mixed-method study
- 1Health Sciences University, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to identify similarities and differences in stakeholder perspectives and findings from a literature review during the process of determining a curriculum. It also aimed to compare stakeholders’ agreement rates.
Methods: This study was nested in a pragmatic sequential exploratory mixed-methods design to determine pediatric chiropractic undergraduate competencies in 3 steps. For step 1, nominal group techniques explored the qualitative and quantitative differences between 3 stakeholders (chiropractors, chiropractic students, and patients) through top-tier items of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Step 2 consisted of a literature review and curriculum enrichment. Step 3 was a survey comparing stakeholder agreement on curricular domains.
Results: Separately, the nominal group techniques generated 48.5% of the final curricular items. Integrating stakeholders’ contributions through thematic analysis reached 60.1% of the final curriculum. Identified similarities for all stakeholders were safeguarding and physical examination scoring top-tier in knowledge items. No other similarities were identified between all stakeholders. The literature review generated the remainder of curriculum items. Of 36 stakeholder comparisons in the survey, 7 domains were statistically significant between patients and chiropractors, 8 between students and chiropractors, and 1 between patients and students. The largest differences (P < .001) involved communication, evidence-based practice, interprofessional collaboration, patient assessment, and professionalism.
Conclusions: Including multiple stakeholders and a literature review broadened the number of curricular items identified. Curricular priorities varied significantly between stakeholders, underscoring the need for collaborative curriculum design. This study suggests that multiple stakeholders and literature reviews are valuable in reaching saturation and meeting stakeholder’s needs in curriculum development.
Related
- Academic performance of large language models across an undergraduate physiotherapy curriculum: a subset analysis
- Stakeholders' perspectives on communication gaps in cervical cancer prevention among women of Turkish, Moroccan and Syrian origin: a focus group study in the Netherlands.
- A G-CHAM program and policy development curriculum using simulated executive review in undergraduate public health nursing education
- From fragmentation to integration: rethinking nutrition education in undergraduate medical curriculum in Pakistan through a mixed-methods study
- Undergraduate nursing students' clinical adaptation: a qualitative journey mapping study from student and clinical preceptor perspectives
BibTeX
@article{marchand2026stakeholders,
title = {{Stakeholders’ perspectives on curriculum content in an undergraduate chiropractic pediatric curriculum: A nested mixed-method study}},
author = {Aurélie M. Marchand},
journal = {The Journal of Chiropractic Education},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7899/jce-25-26},
url = {https://doi.org/10.7899/jce-25-26},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Stakeholders’ perspectives on curriculum content in an undergraduate chiropractic pediatric curriculum: A nested mixed-method study
AU - Aurélie M. Marchand
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/27
JO - The Journal of Chiropractic Education
DO - 10.7899/jce-25-26
UR - https://doi.org/10.7899/jce-25-26
AB - Objective: This study aimed to identify similarities and differences in stakeholder perspectives and findings from a literature review during the process of determining a curriculum. It also aimed to compare stakeholders’ agreement rates. Methods: This study was nested in a pragmatic sequential exploratory mixed-methods design to determine pediatric chiropractic undergraduate competencies in 3 steps. For step 1, nominal group techniques explored the qualitative and quantitative differences between 3 stakeholders (chiropractors, chiropractic students, and patients) through top-tier items of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Step 2 consisted of a literature review and curriculum enrichment. Step 3 was a survey comparing stakeholder agreement on curricular domains. Results: Separately, the nominal group techniques generated 48.5% of the final curricular items. Integrating stakeholders’ contributions through thematic analysis reached 60.1% of the final curriculum. Identified similarities for all stakeholders were safeguarding and physical examination scoring top-tier in knowledge items. No other similarities were identified between all stakeholders. The literature review generated the remainder of curriculum items. Of 36 stakeholder comparisons in the survey, 7 domains were statistically significant between patients and chiropractors, 8 between students and chiropractors, and 1 between patients and students. The largest differences (P < .001) involved communication, evidence-based practice, interprofessional collaboration, patient assessment, and professionalism. Conclusions: Including multiple stakeholders and a literature review broadened the number of curricular items identified. Curricular priorities varied significantly between stakeholders, underscoring the need for collaborative curriculum design. This study suggests that multiple stakeholders and literature reviews are valuable in reaching saturation and meeting stakeholder’s needs in curriculum development.
SN - 1042-5055
SN - 2374-250X
ER -