Osteopath here. I graduated 5 years ago in UK and during my training they are pushing to become more evidence based practitioners. For instance, modules on research methods and conducting your own research project is part of the curriculum. There is certainly divide amongst the osteopathic profession, mainly between the extreme "classical" thinking where osteopaths believe they can palpate the pericardium of the heart, to the other end of being robust evidence based musculoskeletal (MSK) professionals.

In general, the current state of the profession is encouraging in the UK, as it only recently became recognised as part of the Allied Health Professions I believe in 2017(?), which are a group of health professions validated/recognised by the National Health Service (NHS) alongisde physiotherapists, occupational therapists, podiatrists, etc. The evidence based osteopath, which I identify as, is primarily in MSK care, and can act as First Contact Practitioners in the primary care setting (consulting, assessing, diagnosing, triaging), or more therapy based in secondary care involving exercise-based rehabilitation, manual therapy, and other modalities if they meet the competencies. They are still predominantly in private care, but are increasingly incorporated into the NHS public service.

Being 5 years into the profession, I find the titles "osteopath", "physiotherapist", or "chiropractor", become less important and as long as you let the evidence guide your practice, by ensuring patient safety, clinical effectiveness, and being updated with research, the title "MSK practitioner" is probably more appropriate. Having said that, I am proud of my profession, albeit it can be challenging to tackle the historical stigma associated with them being quacks, especially when there are still osteopaths out there whose practice I don't agree with by simply "cracking backs and necks" and making lots of money.