Search

Background: Examining workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain becomes increasingly important because of the changing nature of work and rising healthcare costs. Some psychosocial risk factors for back pain, such as work and family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity, are understudied for the working population in the United States. Methods: Data used in this study came from the Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL), a supplementary module of the General Social Survey conducted in the United States. Data from the 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 QWL surveys were used in these analyses, giving a total sample size of 6661. Five domains of workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain were examined, including job strain, low social support, work‐family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment (harassment and discrimination), and job insecurity. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of each psychosocial risk factor for back pain with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model after controlling for job physical factors, occupation, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Results: Significant associations were found between back pain and several psychosocial factors including job strain (aOR 1.19; CI 1.00,1.41), work‐family imbalance (aOR,1.42; CI 1.22,1.64), harassment (aOR 1.40; CI 1.15,1.71), and discrimination (aOR 1.20 CI 1.00,1.44). Conclusion: This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between a variety of workplace psychosocial factors and back pain. Our findings suggest directions in future longitudinal research to examine emerging workplace psychosocial factors for back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Epidemiological study based on cross-sectional data of a representative sample.Objective: To determine whether financial worries are associated with chronic spinal pain in the US adult population.Summary Of Background Data: This study used data from the US 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The sample size was 33,672 and the study population is defined as aged 18 to 85 years.Methods: To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Spinal pain was defined in two ways: chronic low back pain and neck pain, chronic low back pain and/or neck pain. Eight types of financial worries were assessed: paying monthly bills, maintaining standard of living, credit card payments, paying rent/mortgage/housing costs, medical costs for healthcare, money for retirement, medical costs of illness/accident, and paying for children's college.Results: Different types of financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain, controlling for demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status. These worries included paying monthly bills (odds ratio [OR] 2.5), maintaining standard of living (OR 2.5), credit card payments (OR 2.2), paying rent/mortgage/housing costs (OR 2.2), medical costs for healthcare (OR 2.2), money for retirement, (OR 2.3), medical costs of illness/accident (OR 2.2), and paying for children's college (OR 1.4).Conclusion: This study shows that financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain. Financial worries may be important to be taken into consideration by clinicians managing patients with spinal pain. More future research is needed to explore the association between financial worries and spinal pain.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: This study is based on data from the 2009-2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of the civilian population of the United States. The NHIS focuses on a number of health conditions, including low back pain.Objective: The objective of this study is to explore behavior-related factors associated with low back pain in the US adult population, including leisure-time physical activity, alcohol use, tobacco use, sleep duration, and obesity.Summary Of Background Data: Low back pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal health disorder with profound impact on individuals, business, and society. Addressing behavior-related factors holds the potential to reduce the burden of low back pain on a societal basis.Methods: To account for the complex sampling design of the NHIS, the Taylor linearized variance estimation methods were used to conduct weighted descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses in exploring the relationships between low back pain and a set of behavior-related risk factors.Results: This study shows associations between self-reported lower back pain and reported leisure-time physical inactivity, current or former smoking, current or former alcohol drinking, short sleep duration, and obesity.Conclusion: This study identified a number of behavior-related factors that appear to have a significant relationship with low back pain. Public health policy makers and clinicians should consider these factors to reduce the burden of low back pain. This study supports the need for longitudinal study design in future research.Level Of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objectives of this study were to estimate prevalence of low back pain, to investigate associations between low back pain and a set of emerging workplace risk factors, and to identify worker groups with an increased vulnerability for low back pain in the United States. Methods The data used for this cross-sectional study came from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey, which was designed to collect data on health conditions and related risk factors from the US civilian population. The variance estimation method was used to compute weighted data for prevalence of low back pain. Multivariable logistic regression analyses stratified by sex and age were performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for low back pain. The examined work-related psychosocial risk factors included work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity. Work hours, occupation, and other work organizational factors (nonstandard work arrangements and alternative shifts) were also examined. Results The prevalence of self-reported low back pain in the previous 3 months among workers in the United States was 25.7% in 2010. Female or older workers were at increased risk of experiencing low back pain. We found significant associations between low back pain and a set of psychosocial factors, including work-family imbalance (OR 1.27, CI 1.15-1.41), exposure to hostile work (OR 1.39, CI 1.25-1.55), and job insecurity (OR 1.44, CI 1.24-1.67), while controlling for demographic characteristics and other health-related factors. Older workers who had nonstandard work arrangements were more likely to report low back pain. Women who worked 41 to 45 hours per week and younger workers who worked >60 hours per week had an increased risk for low back pain. Workers from several occupation groups, including male health care practitioners, female and younger health care support workers, and female farming, fishing, and forestry workers, had an increased risk of low back pain. Conclusions This study linked low back pain to work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, job insecurity, long work hours, and certain occupation groups. These factors should be considered by employers, policymakers, and health care practitioners who are concerned about the impact of low back pain in workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise.Methods: A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining: 1. private health plans, 2. workers' compensation (WC) plans, and 3. clinical outcomes. The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.Results: The search uncovered 1276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear.Conclusions: Although cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care, the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a common and potentially disabling condition in all adults, including those who are physically active. It currently is challenging for clinicians and patients to choose among the numerous treatment options. This review summarizes recommendations from recent clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews about common primary care arid secondary care approaches to the management of chronic LBP. The best available evidence currently suggests that in the absence of serious spinal pathology, nonspinal causes, or progressive or severe neurologic deficits, the management of chronic LBP should focus on patient education, self-care, common analgesics, and back exercises. Short-term pain relief~ may be obtained from spinal manipulative therapy or acupuncture. For patients with psychological comorbidities, adjunctive analgesics, behavioral therapy, or multidisciplinary rehabilitation also may be appropriate. Given the importance of active participation in recovery, patient preference should be sought to help select from among the recommended treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the development of chiropractic care in the U.S. Details on improvements in educational and licensing systems of the profession; Applications of chiropractic on spinal pain syndromes; Discussions concerning spinal manipulation.

Introduces essays in volume 18, number 4, 2003 of the journal “Liturgy.” Focus on the sort of rites needed for prayer; Representative voices that show where a variety of churches in the United States may be headed; Meanings of terms that are used frequently in the study of worship; Major initiative among the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) known as Renewing Worship; Issues of liturgical language pertaining to the Episcopalian Church; Tensions inherent in the United Methodist Church, such as commitment, innovation and particularity, and growing musical diversity along with a desire for common song.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To compare utilization patterns for patients with newonset neck pain by initial provider specialty. Summary of Background Data: Initial provider specialty has been associated with distinct care patterns among patients with acute back pain; little is known about care patterns among patients with acute neck pain. Methods: De-identified administrative claims and electronic health record data were derived from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal health information on over 200M enrollees and patients representing a mixture of ages and geographical regions across the United States. Patients had outpatient visits for new-onset neck pain from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019, classified by initial provider specialty. Utilization was assessed during a 180-day follow-up period, including subsequent neck pain visits, diagnostic imaging, and therapeutic interventions. Results: The cohort included 770,326 patients with new-onset neck pain visits. The most common initial provider specialty was chiropractor (45.2%), followed by primary care (33.4%). Initial provider specialty was strongly associated with the receipt of subsequent neck pain visits with the same provider specialty. Rates and types of diagnostic imaging and therapeutic interventions during follow-up also varied widely by initial provider specialty. While uncommon after initial visits with chiropractors (≤2%), CT, or MRI scans occurred in over 30% of patients with initial visits with emergency physicians, orthopedists, or neurologists. Similarly, 6.8% and 3.4% of patients initially seen by orthopedists received therapeutic injections and major surgery, respectively, compared with 0.4% and 0.1% of patients initially seen by a chiropractor. Conclusion: Within a large national cohort, chiropractors were the initial provider for a plurality of patients with new-onset neck pain. Compared with patients initially seen by physician providers, patients treated initially by chiropractors or therapists received fewer and less costly imaging services and were less likely to receive invasive therapeutic interventions during follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background context: The economic burden of low back pain (LBP) is very large and appears to be growing. It is not possible to impact this burden without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the research on which these costs are calculated. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of LBP cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Study design/setting: Systematic review of the literature. Methods: Medline was searched to uncover studies about the direct or indirect costs of LBP published in English from 1997 to 2007. Data extracted for each eligible study included study design, population, definition of LBP, methods of estimating costs, year of data, and estimates of direct, indirect, or total costs. Results were synthesized descriptively. Results: The search yielded 147 studies, of which 21 were deemed relevant; 4 other studies and 2 additional abstracts were found by searching reference lists, bringing the total to 27 relevant studies. The studies reported on data from Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. Nine studies estimated direct costs only, nine indirect costs only, and nine both direct and indirect costs, from a societal (n=18) or private insurer (n=9) perspective. Methodology used to derive both direct and indirect cost estimates differed markedly among the studies. Among studies providing a breakdown on direct costs, the largest proportion of direct medical costs for LBP was spent on physical therapy (17%) and inpatient services (17%), followed by pharmacy (13%) and primary care (13%). Among studies providing estimates of total costs, indirect costs resulting from lost work productivity represented a majority of overall costs associated with LBP. Three studies reported that estimates with the friction period approach were 56% lower than with the human capital approach. Conclusions: Several studies have attempted to estimate the direct, indirect, or total costs associated with LBP in various countries using heterogeneous methodology. Estimates of the economic costs in different countries vary greatly depending on study methodology but by any standards must be considered a substantial burden on society. This review did not identify any studies estimating the total costs of LBP in the United States from a societal perspective. Such studies may be helpful in determining appropriate allocation of health-care resources devoted to this condition. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Study Design: Retrospective observational study.Objective: Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) and Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) are evidence-based strategies for treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the long-term safety of these therapies is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare OAT versus SMT with regard to risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) among older adults with cLBP.Summary Of Background Data: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a 5-year period on fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 84 years, continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D for a 60-month study period, and with an episode of cLBP in 2013. We excluded patients with a diagnosis of cancer or use of hospice care.Methods: All included patients received long-term management of cLBP with SMT or OAT. We assembled cohorts of patients who received SMT or OAT only, and cohorts of patients who crossed over from OAT to SMT or from SMT to OAT. We used Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio for outpatient ADE among patients who initially chose OAT as compared with SMT.Results: With controlling for patient characteristics, health status, and propensity score, the adjusted rate of ADE was more than 42 times higher for initial choice of OAT versus initial choice of SMT (rate ratio 42.85, 95% CI 34.16-53.76, P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who received long-term care for cLBP the adjusted rate of ADE for patients who initially chose OAT was substantially higher than those who initially chose SMT.Level of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinal pain and chronic health conditions are highly prevalent, burdensome, and costly conditions, both in the United States and globally. Using cross-sectional data from the 2016 through 2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 26,926), we explored associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions and investigated the influence that a set of confounders may have on the associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions. Variance estimation method was used to compute weighted descriptive statistics and measures of associations with multinomial logistic regression models. All four chronic health conditions significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain; cardiovascular conditions by 58%, hypertension by 40%, diabetes by 25% and obesity by 34%, controlling for all the confounders. For all chronic health conditions, tobacco use (45-50%), being insufficiently active (17-20%), sleep problems (180-184%), cognitive impairment (90-100%), and mental health conditions (68-80%) significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain compared to cases without spinal pain. These findings provide evidence to support research on the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions with approaches of spinal pain management.

Low back pain and depression have been globally recognized as key public health problems and they are considered co-morbid conditions. This study explores both cross-sectional and longitudinal comorbid associations between back pain and major depression in the adult population in the United States. We used data from the Midlife in the United States survey (MIDUS), linking MIDUS II and III with a sample size of 2358. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were used. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant associations between back pain and major depression. The longitudinal analysis indicated that back pain at baseline was prospectively associated with major depression at follow-up (PR 1.96, CI: 1.41, 2.74), controlling for health behavioral and demographic variables. Major depression at baseline was also prospectively associated with back pain at follow-up (PR 1.48, CI: 1.04, 2.13), controlling for a set of related confounders. These findings of a bidirectional comorbid association fill a gap in the current understanding of these comorbid conditions and could have clinical implications for the management and prevention of both depression and low back pain.

Background: Cervical artery dissection and subsequent ischemic stroke is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation., Methods: We evaluated the association between cervical spinal manipulation and cervical artery dissection among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. We employed case-control and case-crossover designs in the analysis of claims data for individuals aged 65+, continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A (covering hospitalizations) and Part B (covering outpatient encounters) for at least two consecutive years during 2007-2015. The primary exposure was cervical spinal manipulation; the secondary exposure was a clinical encounter for evaluation and management for neck pain or headache. We created a 3-level categorical variable, (1) any cervical spinal manipulation, 2) evaluation and management but no cervical spinal manipulation and (3) neither cervical spinal manipulation nor evaluation and management. The primary outcomes were occurrence of cervical artery dissection, either (1) vertebral artery dissection or (2) carotid artery dissection. The cases had a new primary diagnosis on at least one inpatient hospital claim or primary/secondary diagnosis for outpatient claims on at least two separate days. Cases were compared to 3 different control groups: (1) matched population controls having at least one claim in the same year as the case; (2) ischemic stroke controls without cervical artery dissection; and (3) case-crossover analysis comparing cases to themselves in the time period 6-7 months prior to their cervical artery dissection. We made each comparison across three different time frames: up to (1) 7 days; (2) 14 days; and (3) 30 days prior to index event., Results: The odds of cervical spinal manipulation versus evaluation and management did not significantly differ between vertebral artery dissection cases and any of the control groups at any of the timepoints (ORs 0.84 to 1.88; p > 0.05). Results for carotid artery dissection cases were similar., Conclusion: Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older who received cervical spinal manipulation, the risk of cervical artery dissection is no greater than that among control groups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Study Design: We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design., Objective: The objective of this study was to compare longterm outcomes for spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP)., Summary of Background Data: Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain., Methods: We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP., Results: SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 2.64-2.69, P < .0001)., Conclusion: Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare patients' perspectives on the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to prescription drug therapy (PDT) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient beliefs, and satisfaction with treatment., Methods: Four cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries were assembled according to previous treatment received as evidenced in claims data: SMT, PDT, and 2 crossover cohorts (where participants experienced both types of treatments). A total of 195 Medicare beneficiaries responded to the survey. Outcome measures used were a 0-to-10 numeric rating scale to measure satisfaction, the Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire to measure patient beliefs, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey to measure HRQoL., Results: Recipients of SMT were more likely to be very satisfied with their care (84%) than recipients of PDT (50%; P = .002). The SMT cohort self-reported significantly higher HRQoL compared to the PDT cohort; mean differences in physical and mental health scores on the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were 12.85 and 9.92, respectively. The SMT cohort had a lower degree of concern regarding chiropractic care for their back pain compared to the PDT cohort's reported concern about PDT (P = .03)., Conclusion: Among older Medicare beneficiaries with chronic low back pain, long-term recipients of SMT had higher self-reported rates of HRQoL and greater satisfaction with their modality of care than long-term recipients of PDT. Participants who had longer-term management of care were more likely to have positive attitudes and beliefs toward the mode of care they received., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias., Results: The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001)., Conclusions: Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders., Methods: Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders., Results: Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations., Conclusion: Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)

Objective: Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries., Methods: Medicare is a US government-administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year., Results: Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015., Conclusion: Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Design: Epidemiological study based on cross-sectional data of a representative sample., Objective: To determine whether financial worries are associated with chronic spinal pain in the US adult population., Summary of Background Data: This study used data from the US 2015 National Health Interview Survey. The sample size was 33,672 and the study population is defined as aged 18 to 85 years., Methods: To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Spinal pain was defined in two ways: chronic low back pain and neck pain, chronic low back pain and/or neck pain. Eight types of financial worries were assessed: paying monthly bills, maintaining standard of living, credit card payments, paying rent/mortgage/housing costs, medical costs for healthcare, money for retirement, medical costs of illness/accident, and paying for children's college., Results: Different types of financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain, controlling for demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status. These worries included paying monthly bills (odds ratio [OR] 2.5), maintaining standard of living (OR 2.5), credit card payments (OR 2.2), paying rent/mortgage/housing costs (OR 2.2), medical costs for healthcare (OR 2.2), money for retirement, (OR 2.3), medical costs of illness/accident (OR 2.2), and paying for children's college (OR 1.4)., Conclusion: This study shows that financial worries were significantly associated with chronic spinal pain. Financial worries may be important to be taken into consideration by clinicians managing patients with spinal pain. More future research is needed to explore the association between financial worries and spinal pain., Level of Evidence: 3.

Study Design: This study is based on data from the 2009-2012 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of the civilian population of the United States. The NHIS focuses on a number of health conditions, including low back pain., Objective: The objective of this study is to explore behavior-related factors associated with low back pain in the US adult population, including leisure-time physical activity, alcohol use, tobacco use, sleep duration, and obesity., Summary of Background Data: Low back pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal health disorder with profound impact on individuals, business, and society. Addressing behavior-related factors holds the potential to reduce the burden of low back pain on a societal basis., Methods: To account for the complex sampling design of the NHIS, the Taylor linearized variance estimation methods were used to conduct weighted descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses in exploring the relationships between low back pain and a set of behavior-related risk factors., Results: This study shows associations between self-reported lower back pain and reported leisure-time physical inactivity, current or former smoking, current or former alcohol drinking, short sleep duration, and obesity., Conclusion: This study identified a number of behavior-related factors that appear to have a significant relationship with low back pain. Public health policy makers and clinicians should consider these factors to reduce the burden of low back pain. This study supports the need for longitudinal study design in future research., Level of Evidence: 2.

Study Design: This study uses the Taylor linearized variance estimation method to compute weighted unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of neck pain by occupation, with a cross-section data set from the 2009 to 2012 National Health Interview Survey., Objective: The goal of this study was to explore occupational patterns of neck pain and the relationship between long work hours and neck pain in the working population in the United States., Summary of Background Data: The past research has demonstrated that specific occupations have a high prevalence of neck pain. However, occupational patterns of neck pain in the United States have been understudied., Methods: Risk of neck pain was estimated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association., Results: After controlling for demographic, socioeconomic status, and behavior-related factors and compared with workers in architecture and engineering occupation group, the top 5 occupational groups with significantly higher relative prevalence of neck pain included: military specific (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.17-5.35); arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17); life, physical, and social science (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.33-2.11); health care support (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.23-1.97); and installation, maintenance, and repair (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.96). Compared with those who worked 40 hours, people who worked 46 to 59 hours (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30) and 60 or more hours of work per week (OR, 1.35; 95% CI-1.21, 1.51) were more likely to report neck pain., Conclusion: This study adds to the evidence that an individual's occupation and work hours affect workers' risk for neck pain. This study indicates a need for new research efforts and public policies targeted to workers who are susceptible to neck pain in the United States., Level of Evidence: 1.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to propose questions that may be helpful to educate patients considering treatment approaches to manage low back pain (LBP) and to determine if the information currently presented in informed consent (IC) documents at chiropractic colleges is sufficient to help a patient considering chiropractic management of LBP make a fully informed decision., Methods: Questions to inform decision making for a patient contemplating any intervention for LBP were developed by the authors based on their clinical and research experience. Answers to the questions were suggested based on findings from recent clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. Institutions that are members of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) were surveyed and asked to provide a copy of the IC documents currently used in their outpatient educational clinics. The IC documents were analyzed to determine if they stated (or implied) information that may be helpful in addressing each of the proposed questions., Results: The list of 20 questions included 4 questions on each of the following 5 topics: condition, proposed treatment, potential benefits, potential harms, and possible alternatives. A total of 21 ACC institutions were contacted, of which 20 responded. The number of questions that could potentially be answered with information provided in the IC documents ranged from 2 to 13, with a mean of 6.5, including a mean of 3.6 stated answers and 2.9 implied answers., Conclusions: Some information to help patients consider chiropractic management of LBP is currently included in the IC documents used in clinics of ACC institutions. However, many of the questions that could help achieve shared decision making are not included. Modifying IC documents may help patients understand the nature, benefits, harms, costs, and alternatives to LBP care., (Copyright © 2012 National University of Health Sciences. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Low back pain (LBP) is associated with high health-care utilization and lost productivity. Numerous interventions are routinely used, although few are supported by strong evidence. Cost utility analyses (CUAs) may be helpful to inform decision makers., Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of CUAs of interventions for LBP., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: A search strategy combining medical subject headings and free text related to LBP and health economic evaluations was executed in MEDLINE. Cost utility analyses combined with randomized controlled trials for LBP were included. Studies that were published before 1998, non-English, decision analyses, and duplicate reports were excluded. Search results were evaluated by two reviewers, who extracted data independently related to clinical study design, economic study design, direct cost components, utility results, cost results, and CUA results., Results: The search produced 319 citations, and of these 15 met eligibility criteria. Most were from the United Kingdom (n=8), published in the past 3 years (n=12), studied chronic LBP or radiculopathy (n=13), and had a follow-up >12 months (n=13). Combined, there were 33 study groups who received a mean 2.1 interventions, most commonly education (n=17), exercise therapy (n=13), spinal manipulation therapy (n=7), surgery (n=7), and usual care from a general practitioner (n=7). Mean baseline utility was 0.57, improving to 0.67 at follow-up; the mean difference in utility improvement between study groups was 0.04. Based on available data and converted to US dollars, the cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from $304 to 579,527 dollars, with a median of 13,015 dollars., Conclusions: Few CUAs were identified for LBP, and there was heterogeneity in the interventions compared, direct cost components measured, indirect costs, other methods, and results. Reporting quality was mixed. Currently published CUAs do not provide sufficient information to assist decision makers. Future CUAs should attempt to measure all known direct cost components relevant to LBP, estimate indirect costs such as lost productivity, have a follow-up period sufficient to capture meaningful changes, and clearly report methods and results to facilitate interpretation and comparison.

Objective: To study the side effects and adverse events related to intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for back and neck pain., Design: Practitioner postal survey., Setting: Postal survey of practitioners of prolotherapy for back and neck pain in the United States and Canada., Participants: A sample of prolotherapy practitioners from 2 professional organizations were surveyed about their training and experience, use of specific treatment procedures, estimated prevalence of side effects, and adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of side effects and adverse events., Results: Surveys were completed by 171 practitioners (response rate, 50%). Ninety-eight percent held medical degrees, and 83% were board certified in various disciplines. Respondents had a median of 10 years of experience, during which they had treated a median of 500 patients and given a median of 2000 treatments. Side effects with the highest median estimated prevalence were pain (70%), stiffness (25%), and bruising (5%). There were 472 reports of adverse events, including 69 that required hospitalization and 5 that resulted in permanent injury secondary to nerve injury. The vast majority (80%) were related to needle injuries such as spinal headache (n = 164), pneumothorax (n=123), temporary systemic reactions (n = 73), nerve damage (n = 54), hemorrhage (n = 27), nonsevere spinal cord insult (ie, meningitis, paralysis, spinal cord injury) (n = 9), and disk injury (n = 2)., Conclusions: Side effects related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain, such as temporary postinjection pain, stiffness, and bruising, are common and benign. Adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain are similar in nature to other widely used spinal injection procedures. Further study is needed to fully describe the adverse event profile of prolotherapy for back and neck pain.

Chiropractic is now more than a century old, and it is licensed throughout the United States and Canada and recognized in more than 60 countries worldwide. Doctors of Chiropractic receive training that is focused on the treatment of NMS conditions through manual and physical procedures, such as manipulation, massage, exercise, and nutrition. Most patients present to chiropractors with low back pain, neck pain, whiplash, and headaches. Numerous studies and expert panel reviews have supported the use of chiropractic and manipulation for these complaints. Satisfaction with chiropractic care for low back pain typically is good. Chiropractic, in general, offers safe and cost-effective procedures for selected musculoskeletal problems.

Study Design: A retrospective review of 64 medicolegal records describing cerebrovascular ischemia after cervical spine manipulation was conducted., Objectives: To describe 64 cases of cerebrovascular accidents temporally associated with cervical spine manipulation therapy in terms of patient characteristics, potential risk factors, nature of complication, and neurologic sequelae., Summary of Background Data: Approximately 117 cases of postmanipulation cerebrovascular ischemia have been reported in the English language literature. Proposed risk factors include age, gender, migraine headaches, hypertension, diabetes, birth control pills, cervical spondylosis, and smoking. It is often assumed that these complications may be avoided by clinically screening patients and by premanipulation positioning of the head and neck to evaluate the patency of the vertebral arteries., Methods: Three researchers using a uniform data abstraction instrument performed an independent review of 64 previously unpublished medicolegal records describing cerebrovascular ischemia after cervical spine manipulation. These cases were referred to a single physician for review over a 16-year period from across the United States and Canada. Descriptive statistics were calculated for characteristics of the patients and the complications. Means and standard deviations were computed for continuous variables. Frequencies and proportions were calculated for categorical variables., Results: This study was unable to identify factors from the clinical history and physical examination of the patient that would assist a physician attempting to isolate the patient at risk of cerebral ischemia after cervical manipulation., Conclusion: Cerebrovascular accidents after manipulation appear to be unpredictable and should be considered an inherent, idiosyncratic, and rare complication of this treatment approach.