Methodology: Private Practice Barometer 2026

This page documents the full methodology behind the UK Private Practice Barometer 2026. It is published to support appropriate use of the data, enable academic citation, and allow journalists and researchers to assess reliability and limitations before reporting findings.

Study Overview

Sampling Frame and Distribution

The survey was distributed through two primary channels:

1. Email distribution: The survey was shared via the HMDG client and subscriber email list, and through partner networks within the UK MSK community. Recipients were current and prospective clients of HMDG and subscribers to HMDG's content channels.
2. Online advertising: Paid social and display advertising was used to reach UK clinic owners outside the HMDG audience, with targeting parameters set to relevant professional demographics.

Sampling approach: Non-probability convenience sampling. Participation was voluntary and self-selected. There was no random sampling from a population register. This means findings are representative of clinics willing to participate in benchmarking research rather than a statistically guaranteed cross-section of all UK private practices.

Implied population: The survey does not claim to represent every UK MSK clinic. It represents the segment of the market that engages with professional development content and benchmarking data, likely skewing toward more commercially aware and growth-oriented clinic owners than a true random sample would produce.

Survey Instrument Design

• Question logic: The survey used skip logic and branching to route respondents to only the questions relevant to their practice model, reducing survey fatigue and improving completion rates for applicable questions.
• Question types: A mix of forced-choice, multiple-choice, Likert scale (1-5), numerical input (open-ended for financial data), and free-text responses.
• Likert scales: Perceptual data (wellbeing, optimism, confidence) was gathered on 5-point scales ranging from "Strongly Disagree/Very Pessimistic" to "Strongly Agree/Very Optimistic."
• Financial inputs: Revenue, pay, and pricing data were collected as open numerical inputs with some questions also offering range-based options for respondents less comfortable disclosing precise figures.
• Pre-launch testing: The instrument underwent a pilot test phase. Responses entered during testing were excluded from the analytical dataset.
• Location data update: Ten days after launch, the location question was modified from postcode collection to broader regional categories (e.g., "South East England") to protect respondent anonymity. This change does not affect the validity of regional findings but means postcode-level analysis is not available.

Response Profile

The sample is weighted toward:

• Role: 95.7% of identified respondents are clinic owners or clinic owner-practitioners. The data is a survey of decision-makers, not employees.
• Specialty: Physiotherapy is the dominant represented profession (59% offer it; 30% are physio-only). Multi-disciplinary clinics represent 33%. Podiatry (20%), Osteopathy (15%), and Chiropractic (13%) are the next largest cohorts.
• Geography: The South East (19%) and London (17%) are over-represented relative to their share of the UK population, reflecting both the density of private practice in these regions and the distribution channels used.
• Experience: 63% of respondents have been operating for more than 5 years. Only 15% are start-ups (<2 years). Findings should be interpreted as reflecting established, stable businesses more than new ventures.
• Revenue: The sample represents the middle market. 56% of clinics generate £100k, £500k. Only 5.3% are enterprise-level (>£1M). Findings about very small (<£50k) and very large (>£1M) clinics are based on smaller sub-samples.

Data Validation and Quality Control

Several cleaning protocols were applied to protect data integrity:

Format Normalisation

Financial inputs were submitted in inconsistent formats (e.g., a 20% rate entered as "0.2", "20", or "20%"). Automated scripts standardised all numerical inputs to consistent formats before analysis. Flagged outliers were reviewed manually.

Logic Consistency Checks

Cross-variable logic checks were embedded in the analysis to identify internally contradictory responses (e.g., reporting a solo practice with 10 full-time staff). Inconsistent records were excluded from the relevant sub-analyses or flagged in commentary.

Qualitative Clustering

Open-text responses were processed using an AI-assisted thematic clustering approach to categorise large volumes of text into analytical groups. All AI-generated clusters were manually reviewed and verified by the HMDG research team before inclusion in the report. This hybrid approach is disclosed in the main Barometer report.

Profit Margin Caveats

Self-reported profit margins, particularly from clinics with revenue under £100k, are treated with caution throughout the analysis. Many solo owners do not deduct a fair market salary for their own clinical time from net earnings, creating "phantom profits." Where profit margin is discussed, this limitation is noted explicitly in the report and relevant articles.

Analysis Framework

• Software: Raw data was processed and analysed using Microsoft Excel.
• Central tendency: Where both mean and median are reported, the median is generally considered more reliable for the skewed distributions typical in small business revenue data. Where only one figure is shown, it is labelled as average (mean) or median explicitly.
• Correlation: Pearson r correlation coefficients are used throughout. Correlation does not imply causality. All correlation findings are presented with this caveat. The ice cream/sunburn analogy in the introduction to the main report reflects this framing.
• Statistical significance: Standard significance thresholds were applied where stated (e.g., the London turnover difference is noted as statistically significant at p=0.027). Not all differences are significance-tested; some represent descriptive comparisons.
• Rounding: All reported percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number unless precision is analytically important.
• Sub-sample sizes: Findings based on fewer than 20 respondents are flagged throughout the main report and supporting articles as requiring cautious interpretation.

Margin of Error and Confidence

Because the study uses convenience sampling rather than random probability sampling, a traditional margin of error calculation does not apply. The following guidance is offered instead:

• For the full dataset (n=715): If the sample were a true random sample, a ±3.7% margin of error would apply at 95% confidence for proportional estimates. In practice, results should be interpreted as directional benchmarks rather than statistically generalised findings.
• For sub-group analyses: Findings from sub-groups smaller than 50 respondents should be treated as directional rather than definitive. Sub-groups smaller than 20 are explicitly flagged in the report.
• Regional data: Several UK regions are represented by 10-30 respondents. Findings from these regions (particularly Northern Ireland, Wales, North East & Cumbria) reflect a limited local sample and should not be treated as definitive regional benchmarks.

Known Limitations

1. Self-selection bias: Clinic owners who participate in benchmarking surveys may be more commercially engaged, more optimistic, or running more successful businesses than non-participants. The high optimism scores (81% positive) may partly reflect this.
2. Self-reported financial data: Revenue, pay, and pricing data are self-reported and unverified. They are subject to recall bias, social desirability bias, and varying definitions (e.g., whether revenue includes VAT, whether owner draw is included in payroll costs).
3. Single time-point: This is the first year of the Barometer. Longitudinal trends, year-on-year comparisons, and causal inference are not yet possible. These will become available from the 2027 edition onward.
4. UK-only scope: All findings apply to UK private practice only. International comparisons are not drawn.
5. Specialty coverage gaps: Aesthetics (n=24), Strength & Conditioning (n=122), and Pilates (n=112) are included but have smaller base sizes than Physiotherapy (n=418). Specialty-specific findings for smaller groups should be treated cautiously.
6. Joint ownership not captured: The gender analysis treats each clinic as having a single owner and single identified gender. Clinics jointly owned by individuals of different genders are not captured as such. This is a known gap acknowledged in the main report and will be addressed in future editions.

Conflict of Interest Statement

HMDG is a marketing agency specialising in UK private practice clinics. This study was commissioned and executed by HMDG. The following conflicts of interest are disclosed:

1. Cliniko recommendation: HMDG recommends Cliniko as a practice management system to its clients. Cliniko users may therefore be overrepresented in the respondent pool relative to the true UK market share. This is disclosed on the relevant software article and in the main Barometer report. Cliniko's satisfaction score and market share figures should be interpreted with this in mind.
2. Client representation: A portion of respondents are HMDG clients. HMDG clients may have higher-than-average commercial awareness and may operate higher-revenue businesses than the non-client average. This would tend to skew revenue, marketing spend, and growth metric averages upward.
3. Commercial interest in benchmark credibility: HMDG benefits commercially from the credibility and reach of this report. We have attempted to mitigate this by publishing methodology transparently, including data that reflects poorly on common industry practices, and presenting findings that contradict intuitive assumptions (e.g., bonuses correlate with higher turnover; high diary utilisation reduces wellbeing).
4. No sponsor relationships: No third-party software providers, insurers, or industry bodies paid for inclusion in or influence over the findings of this report. There were no sponsored questions or paid placements in the survey.

We believe the data is materially accurate and useful for the industry. We also believe that the conflicts above are manageable and disclosed. Readers are invited to reach out with questions or challenges at [email protected].

Citation Format

We request that all use of this data is attributed to the Private Practice Barometer 2026 and links to the source page. For permissions beyond standard attribution, or to discuss access to additional data, contact [email protected].

Related pages:

• Private Practice Barometer 2026, Main Report
• UK Private Practice Benchmark Glossary
• Revenue Correlation Matrix
• Clinic Owner Salary UK
• How to Scale a Physio Clinic to £1M+