The purpose of this study is to investigate current attitudes and opinions about chiropractors’ advertising and to compare them to the attitudes expressed eight years ago. This study was designed to determine (a) consumers’ attitudes toward advertising by chiropractors, (b) which media consumers feel are appropriate for chiropractors’ advertising, (c) whether consumers are seeing chiropractors’ advertising, and (d) if so, through which media. It replicates a survey conducted in 2008 and uses a very similar questionnaire and the same general population to compare responses longitudinally. Both the 2008 and 2016 respondents agreed that the public would be provided useful information through advertising by chiropractors, and both groups also believed it is proper for chiropractors to advertise. The study seems to confirm the belief of many marketing professionals that advertising and marketing clearly have a place in the future of health-care services.
KershenDL. Professional legal organizations on the Internet: websites and ethics. Drake J Agric Law1999; 4: 41–175.
2.
AltmanJM. Considering the ABA’s 1908 canons of ethics. Fordham Law Rev2003; 71: 2395–2508.
3.
SorokaMKrumholzDBennettA. The practice of optometry: national board of examiners in optometry survey of optometric patients. Optom Vis Sci2006; 83: 625–634.
SahlJP. The cost of humanitarian assistance: ethical rules and the first amendment. St. Mary’s Law J2003; 34: 795–872.
6.
GadishD. Online marketing of a dental supply e-store on a tight budget. J Cases Inf Technol2009; 11: 1–8.
7.
PineroDP. Research in optometry: a challenge and a chance. Investigacion en optometria: un retoy una oportunidad. J Optom2011; 4: 115–156.
8.
MansourAMMollayessGEHabibRet al.Bibliometric trends in ophthalmology 1977-2009. Res Methodol2015; 63: 1–6.
9.
MillerJAWallerR. Health care advertising: consumer vs. physician attitudes. J Advert1979; 8: 20–29.
10.
Hite RE. An empirical analysis of consumers’ attitudes toward accountants, attorneys, and Physicians with respect to advertising professional services. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1982.
11.
ButcherKSparksBO’CallaghanF. Effect of social influence in repurchase intentions. J Serv Mark2002; 16: 503–514.
12.
SheppardL. Models of service quality in professional health services. Serv Mark Q2002; 23: 1–12.
13.
Ross M. Pharmacy kickbacks lawsuit spurs Novartis settlement. Pharmacy Times 24 November 2015, pp.1–2.
14.
EndresenKWWintzJC. Inside the mind of today’s consumer. Mark Health Serv2002; 22: 19–25.
15.
HandlinAMoscaJBForgioneDAet al.DTC pharmaceutical advertising: the debate’s not over. J Consum Mark2003; 20: 227–232.
16.
Jacobson D. New law could expand role of pharmacists as health care provider. School of Pharmacy, 12 November 2013, pp.1–5.
17.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. 425 U.S.748; 96 S.Ct.1817, 1976.
18.
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. 433 US 350, 1977.
19.
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar Association. 421 U.S.773, 1975.
20.
Gallup-Palmer College of Chiropractic Annual Report: Americans’ Perceptions of Chiropractic. Gallup and Palmer College of Chiropractic, http://bit.ly/2jrr7TG (accessed 17 August 2017).
