Search

Abstract Background Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. Methods Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory—in this case, Anderson’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. Results Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. Conclusions Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Abstract Background Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective—i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered. Methods We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Results The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate. Conclusions This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Introduction: Few studies indicated the impact of ethnicity on an association between central sleep apnea (CSA) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) in older populations. We assessed possible ethnic differences in the association among elderly Japanese-American and White-American men. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using two population studies of Japanese-American and White-American men. The Kuakini Honolulu-Asia Aging Study is a longitudinal cohort study of Japanese-American men living in Hawaii. Sleep data were collected between 1999 and 2000. The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (Mr.OS) Sleep Study was conducted between 2003 and 2005 on the continental U.S. The majority of Mr.OS participants were White-American. We selected 79–90 year old males, who had overnight polysomnography from both studies. Total participants were 690 Japanese-American and 871 White-American men. The central apnea index (CAI) was the measure of the number of central apneas. CSA was defined by CAI>=5. Cheyne-Stokes breathing (CSB) was defined as a minimum consecutive 5–10 min period of a crescendo-decrescendo respiratory pattern associated with CSA. Results: The prevalence of AF was 5.7% in Japanese-American men and 9.0% in White-American men. The prevalence of CSA and CSB in White-Americans were higher than in Japanese-Americans (11.5% vs 6.5% and 5.7% vs 3.3%, respectively). In multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models, CSA was associated with higher odds of AF, and the association was stronger in Japanese-Americans [Odds Ratio (OR) = 4.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.95–11.67] than in White-Americans (OR = 2.09, 95 %CI: 1.09–4.01). CSB showed similar trends as CSA. Conclusions: After adjustment, CSA and CSB were significantly associated with AF in both Japanese-American and White-American men.

This prospective, community-based, active surveillance study aimed to report the incidence of moderate, severe, and serious adverse events (AEs) after chiropractic (n = 100) / physiotherapist (n = 50) visit in offices throughout North America between October-2015 and December-2017. Three content-validated questionnaires were used to collect AE information: two completed by the patient (pre-treatment [T0] and 2-7 days post-treatment [T2]) and one completed by the provider immediately post-treatment [T1]. Any new or worsened symptom was considered an AE and further classified as mild, moderate, severe or serious. From the 42 participating providers (31 chiropractors; 11 physiotherapists), 3819 patient visits had complete T0 and T1 assessments. The patients were on average 50±18 years of age and 62.5% females. Neck/back pain was the most common presenting condition (70.0%) with 24.3% of patients reporting no condition/preventative care. From the patients visits with a complete T2 assessment (n = 2136 patient visits, 55.9%), 21.3% reported an AE, of which: 7.9% were mild, 6.2% moderate, 3.7% severe, 1.5% serious, and 2.0% had missing severity rating. The most common symptoms reported with moderate or higher severity were discomfort/pain, stiffness, difficulty walking and headache. This study provides valuable information for patients and providers regarding incidence and severity of AEs following patient visits in multiple community-based professions. These findings can be used to inform patients of what AEs may occur and future research opportunities can focus on mitigating common AEs.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. METHODS:A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. RESULTS:Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers' compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. CONCLUSION:Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN.: Randomized clinical trial.OBJECTIVES.: To compare the long-term effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for low back pain in managed care and to assess the effectiveness of physical therapy and modalities among patients receiving medical or chiropractic care.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Evidence comparing the long-term relative effectiveness of common treatment strategies offered to low back pain patients in managed care is lacking.METHODS.: A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to a managed-care facility were randomized to chiropractic with or without physical modalities, or medical care with or without physical therapy, and followed for 18 months. The primary outcome variables are low back pain intensity, disability, and complete remission. The secondary outcome is participantsʼ perception of improvement in low back symptoms.RESULTS.: Of the 681 patients, 610 (89.6%) were followed through 18 months. Among participants not assigned to receive physical therapy or modalities, the estimated improvements in pain and disability and 18-month risk of complete remission were a little greater in the chiropractic group than in the medical group (adjusted RR of remission = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.80–2.07). Among participants assigned to medical care, mean changes in pain and disability and risk of remission were larger in patients assigned to receive physical therapy (adjusted RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.08–2.66). Among those assigned to chiropractic care, however, assignment to methods was not associated with improvement or remission (adjusted RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.62–1.55). Compared with medical care only patients, chiropractic and physical therapy patients were much more likely to perceive improvement in their low back symptoms. However, less than 20% of all patients were pain-free at 18 months.CONCLUSIONS.: Differences in outcomes between medical and chiropractic care without physical therapy or modalities are not clinically meaningful, although chiropractic may result in a greater likelihood of perceived improvement, perhaps reflecting satisfaction or lack of blinding. Physical therapy may be more effective than medical care alone for some patients, while physical modalities appear to have no benefit in chiropractic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN.: Observational study conducted within a randomized clinical trial.OBJECTIVES.: The objective of this study is to estimate the effects of patient satisfaction on subsequent changes in pain and disability among low back pain patients randomized to chiropractic or medical care in a managed-care practice setting.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Recent studies of low back pain treatments have shown chiropractic patients to be more satisfied with their care than medical patients. However, little is known about the relation between patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.METHODS.: A total of 681 low back pain patients presenting to three southern California healthcare clinics and screened for serious spinal pathology and contraindications were randomized to medical care with and without physical therapy, and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities, and followed for 18 months. Satisfaction with back care was measured on a 40-point scale and observed at 4 weeks following randomization. The primary outcome variables, observed between 6 weeks and 18 months of follow-up, are average and most severe low back pain intensity in the past week, assessed with 0 to 10 numerical rating scales, low back-related disability, assessed with the 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and remission from clinically meaningful pain and disability. Perceived change in low back symptoms was a secondary outcome.RESULTS.: Greater satisfaction increased the odds of remission from clinically meaningful pain and disability at 6 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] for 10-point increase in satisfaction = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99, 2.68), but not at 6, 12, or 18 months (6 months: adjusted OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.52; 12 months: adjusted OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.67, 1.32; 18 months: adjusted OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.76, 1.50). Perception of improvement was greater among highly satisfied than less satisfied patients throughout the 18-month follow-up period. The estimated effects of satisfaction on clinical outcomes were similar for medical and chiropractic patients.CONCLUSIONS.: Patient satisfaction may confer small short-term clinical benefits for low back pain patients. Long-term perceived improvement may reflect, in part, perceived past improvement as measured by satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN.: Randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVES.: To document the types and frequencies of adverse reactions associated with the most common chiropractic treatments for neck pain, and to identify possible clinical predictors of adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Chiropractic care is frequently sought by patients for relief from neck pain; however, adverse reactions related to its primary modes of treatment have not been well examined. METHODS.: A total of 336 patients with neck pain presenting to 4 southern California health care clinics were randomized in a balanced 2 2 2 factorial design to manipulation with or without heat, and with or without electrical muscle stimulation (EMS); and mobilization with or without heat and with or without EMS. Discomfort or unpleasant reactions from chiropractic care were self-assessed at 2 weeks after the randomization/baseline visit. RESULTS.: Of the 280 participants (83%) who responded, 85 (30.4%) had 212 adverse symptoms as a result of chiropractic care. Increased neck pain or stiffness was the most common symptom, reported by 25% of the participants. Less common were headache and radiating pain. Patients randomized to manipulation were more likely than those randomized to mobilization to have an adverse symptom occurring within 24 hours of treatment (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83, 2.49). Heat and EMS were only weakly associated with adverse symptoms (heat: OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54, 1.62; EMS: OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.63, 1.89). Moderate-to-severe neck disability at baseline was strongly associated with adverse neurologic symptoms (OR = 5.70, 95% CI = 1.49, 21.80). CONCLUSIONS.: Our results suggest that adverse reactions to chiropractic care for neck pain are common andthat despite somewhat imprecise estimation, adverse reactions appear more likely to follow cervical spine manipulation than mobilization. Given the possible higher risk of adverse reactions and lack of demonstrated effectiveness of manipulation over mobilization, chiropractors should consider a conservative approach for applying manipulation to their patients, especially those with severe neck pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The increasing prevalence of coexisting health conditions poses a challenge to healthcare providers and healthcare systems. Spinal pain (eg, neck and back pain) and spinal pathologies (eg, osteoporotic fractures and degenerative spinal disease) exist concurrently with other non-spinal health conditions (NSHC). However, the scope of what associations may exist among these co-occurring conditions is unclear. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the epidemiological literature that reports associations between spine-related pain and pathologies (SPPs) and NSHCs.Methods and analysis This scoping review will follow the JBI protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We will systematically search the literature using key words and MeSH terms for SPPs and NSHCs. Terminology/vocabulary for NSHCs will include those for communicable and non-communicable diseases as reported by WHO Global Burden of Disease reports. Five databases will be searched from inception: MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Papers published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, including measures of association between SPPs and NSHCs and using observational epidemiologic study designs will be included. Excluded will be studies of cadaveric, animal or health behaviours; studies with no measures of association and non-observational epidemiologic studies. Results will include the number of studies, the studies that have evaluated the measures of association and the frequency of the studied associations between SPPs and NSHCs. Results will be reported in tables and diagrams. Themes of comorbidities will be synthesised into a descriptive report.Ethics and dissemination This scoping review was deemed exempt from ethics review. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the literature that reports associations between SPPs and NSHCs to inform future research initiatives and practices. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and research conferences.Registration details https://osf.io/w49u3.