Educating Physicians About Rolfing

For several years I have slowly but consistently taken steps to inform and educate physicians in my community about Rolfing. Exactly how successful this project has been is hard to know, yet our efforts seem to be making a difference. By ?making a difference?, I mean the following:

Ideally Thom Walker, Iginia Boccalandro and myself, the three Rolfers of Rolfing Associates in Burlington, Vermont, would like to receive direct referrals from physicians; and we are starting to have a small number, although it’s no deluge. Commonly, we find as we reach deeper into the mainstream culture of northern and central Vermont, our clients are increasingly likely to check with their physicians about Rolfing before contacting us. What we want and what is happening are that the physicians are more often telling these people that Rolfing ‘might be worth a try,’ ‘probably won’t hurt,’ and so on. That is a giant step forward from the more typical, negative physician-response, despite the likelihood that the physic an is not well informed or not informed at all about our work.

For anyone interested in experimenting with die strategy we have used, some qualifications might be useful. The steps I will describe would not make sense if you are not committed to being in your community for a long time, because tills kind of project takes persistence and pays off slowly. It would also not make sense, obviously, if a Rolfer is ideologically opposed to dialogue with physicians or hostile to allopathic medicine in general.

Furthermore, if a Rolfer’s commitment is exclusively to filling one’s practice, this is probably not the most efficient use of limited time and money. In my own actions, I am guided by a goal which I published in Rolf Lines several years ago of having ‘Rolfing be so well known that every man and woman is able to choose freely, on the basis of full and accurate information, whether or not Rolfing is something they want for themselves. ?Within this context? outreach to physicians makes sense as part of this larger goal.

Finally, some of these approaches are similar to ways we reach out to chiropractors. At the same time, Chiropractors are a unique group; and our approach to them has differed somewhat, mostly in the direction of being more personal, starting with one-to-one contact.

The largest project to date was a mailing to approximately 800 physicians about Rolfing. Rolfing was described in a letter; and contained in the envelope was a stamped, return, pre-printed postcard allowing the physician to check a box to request more information, copies of research reports as they appear, a call to talk, or a call to set up a first Rolfing session as a professional courtesy. Both the letter and die return postcard were computer printed with that physician’s name and address. A month later, a second went out to those who did not respond to the first mailing and told them that a significant number of their colleagues responded the first time and then asked if they would like to learn what that interest was about.

Several smaller projects: we have spoken six times to groups of physicians or groups which included physicians. Groups including physicians were groups of physical therapists and other professionals, and presentations to hospital staffs that had a mixed audience of professionals. Several times we spoke to groups of medical students.

When clients come to us despite a physician’s discouraging remarks, we try to contact that physician to learn the source of die negative opinion and to provide information. A non-charged, informative approach seems to work best. We do not approach the task with the idea that we are going to ‘pound sense into that idiot’s head? even if we feel this way.

When clients come on a physician’s referral, we acknowledge the referral to the physician and if appropriate and okay with the client, we share our structural observations and results with the doctor.

When the second Cottingham study appeared, I purchased 100 reprints from the institute and mailed them to a select group of physicians, with a business card stapled to the front page. The response from several has been positive, including a note from one orthopedist in rehabilitative medicine who was quoted some years ago in an article on Rolfing in a local paper to the effect that ‘There are lots of treatments out there that are not effective, but people have been led to believe they are. In a recent note he wrote, Thank you for the copy of the article…l do want you to know that the more good clinical research in Rolfing that I read, the more positive my reaction to your profession is?.

As additional quality research appears, we will make it available to physicians in a similar way.

Finally, I am now planning to sponsor a Saturday morning radio talk show on health issues which will air for six months. The host interviews a different guest each week, focusing on mainstream health issues of interest and handles listener call- ins. The audience profile is over 40, above average affluent population. Sponsorship costs $900 and provides one 30-second commercial per week, changeable as often as I like. Rolfing Associates is acknowledged as a program sponsor in the introduction, the closing, and ten additional times during the week when the show is promoted by the station. While this is not a direct approach to physicians, I mention it because it is a further effort to mainstream Rolfing and to position it as a legitimate health care modality.

There it is. None of it earth-shattering; all of it slow and all of useful, I believe, over time. Furthermore, I am certain each measure of success will open up more opportunities for a relation with physicians and traditional medicine that we cannot envision right now.

I would appreciate hearing about strategies and experiences of other Rolfers in this area.