The process and outcomes of chronic low back pain treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-25 eCollection Date: 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1515/jom-2023-0046
John C Licciardone, Joel Kellerlee, Matthew Joseph, Moath B Mohammad, Kelly G Kim, Jyotirmaya Jain, Subhash Aryal
{"title":"The process and outcomes of chronic low back pain treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"John C Licciardone,&nbsp;Joel Kellerlee,&nbsp;Matthew Joseph,&nbsp;Moath B Mohammad,&nbsp;Kelly G Kim,&nbsp;Jyotirmaya Jain,&nbsp;Subhash Aryal","doi":"10.1515/jom-2023-0046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Osteopathic physicians are trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, to treat somatic dysfunction with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), and to avoid unnecessarily prescribing drugs such as opioids. It is also generally believed that osteopathic physicians provide a unique patient-centered approach to medical care that involves effective communication and empathy. Such training and characteristics of osteopathic medical care (OMC) may enhance clinical outcomes among patients with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to measure and compare the process and longitudinal outcomes of chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians and to identify mediators of the treatment effects of OMC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing adult participants with CLBP within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through December 2022. Participants having an osteopathic or allopathic physician for at least 1 month prior to registry enrollment were included and followed at quarterly intervals for up to 12 months. Physician communication and physician empathy were measured at registry enrollment. Opioid prescribing and effectiveness and safety outcomes were measured at registry enrollment and for up to 12 months and were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to compare participants treated by osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians. Multiple mediator models, including physician communication, physician empathy, opioid prescribing, and OMT, with covariate adjustments, were utilized to identify mediators of OMC treatment effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,079 participants and 4,779 registry encounters were studied. The mean (SD) age of participants at enrollment was 52.9 (13.2) years, 796 (73.8 %) were female, and 167 (15.5 %) reported having an osteopathic physician. The mean physician communication score for osteopathic physicians was 71.2 (95 % CI, 67.6-74.7) vs. 66.2 (95 % CI, 64.8-67.7) for allopathic physicians (p=0.01). The respective mean scores for physician empathy were 41.6 (95 % CI, 39.9-43.2) vs. 38.3 (95 % CI, 37.6-39.1) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in opioid prescribing for low back pain between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. Although participants treated by osteopathic physicians reported less severe nausea and vomiting as adverse events potentially attributable to opioids in a multivariable model, neither result was clinically relevant. OMC was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 12 months. Physician empathy was a significant mediator of OMC treatment effects in each of the three outcome domains; however, physician communication, opioid prescribing, and OMT were not mediators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study findings indicate that osteopathic physicians provide a patient-centered approach to CLBP treatment, particularly involving empathy, that yields significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and HRQOL over 12 months of follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":36050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":"123 8","pages":"385-394"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Osteopathic physicians are trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, to treat somatic dysfunction with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), and to avoid unnecessarily prescribing drugs such as opioids. It is also generally believed that osteopathic physicians provide a unique patient-centered approach to medical care that involves effective communication and empathy. Such training and characteristics of osteopathic medical care (OMC) may enhance clinical outcomes among patients with chronic pain.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to measure and compare the process and longitudinal outcomes of chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians and to identify mediators of the treatment effects of OMC.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing adult participants with CLBP within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through December 2022. Participants having an osteopathic or allopathic physician for at least 1 month prior to registry enrollment were included and followed at quarterly intervals for up to 12 months. Physician communication and physician empathy were measured at registry enrollment. Opioid prescribing and effectiveness and safety outcomes were measured at registry enrollment and for up to 12 months and were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to compare participants treated by osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians. Multiple mediator models, including physician communication, physician empathy, opioid prescribing, and OMT, with covariate adjustments, were utilized to identify mediators of OMC treatment effects.

Results: A total of 1,079 participants and 4,779 registry encounters were studied. The mean (SD) age of participants at enrollment was 52.9 (13.2) years, 796 (73.8 %) were female, and 167 (15.5 %) reported having an osteopathic physician. The mean physician communication score for osteopathic physicians was 71.2 (95 % CI, 67.6-74.7) vs. 66.2 (95 % CI, 64.8-67.7) for allopathic physicians (p=0.01). The respective mean scores for physician empathy were 41.6 (95 % CI, 39.9-43.2) vs. 38.3 (95 % CI, 37.6-39.1) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in opioid prescribing for low back pain between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. Although participants treated by osteopathic physicians reported less severe nausea and vomiting as adverse events potentially attributable to opioids in a multivariable model, neither result was clinically relevant. OMC was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 12 months. Physician empathy was a significant mediator of OMC treatment effects in each of the three outcome domains; however, physician communication, opioid prescribing, and OMT were not mediators.

Conclusions: The study findings indicate that osteopathic physicians provide a patient-centered approach to CLBP treatment, particularly involving empathy, that yields significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and HRQOL over 12 months of follow-up.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
整骨疗法和对抗疗法医生提供的慢性腰痛治疗的过程和结果:一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:整骨医生接受过治疗肌肉骨骼症状患者的培训,通过整骨手法治疗(OMT)治疗身体功能障碍,并避免不必要地开阿片类药物等处方。人们还普遍认为,整骨医生提供了一种独特的以患者为中心的医疗护理方法,包括有效的沟通和同理心。这种整骨医疗护理(OMC)的训练和特点可以提高慢性疼痛患者的临床结果。目的:本研究的目的是测量和比较整骨医生和对抗疗法医生提供的慢性腰痛(CLBP)治疗的过程和纵向结果,并确定OMC治疗效果的介质,2016年4月至2022年12月的临床和干预研究与创新(PRECISION)。参与者在注册登记前至少有1个月的整骨或对抗疗法医生,并每季度随访12个月。在注册登记时测量医生沟通和医生同理心。阿片类药物的处方、有效性和安全性结果在注册登记时进行了测量,持续时间长达12个月,并用广义估计方程进行分析,以比较整骨医生与对抗疗法医生治疗的参与者。多个中介模型,包括医生沟通、医生同理心、阿片类药物处方和OMT,以及协变量调整,用于确定OMC治疗效果的中介。结果:共研究了1079名参与者和4779次注册遭遇。参与者在注册时的平均(SD)年龄为52.9(13.2)岁,796(73.8 %) 为女性,167(15.5 %) 据报道有一位整骨医生。整骨医生的平均医师沟通得分为71.2(95 % CI,67.6-74.7)与66.2(95 % CI,64.8-67.7)(p=0.01)。医生移情的平均得分分别为41.6(95 % CI,39.9-43.2)与38.3(95 % CI,37.6-39.1)(结论:研究结果表明,整骨医生提供了一种以患者为中心的CLBP治疗方法,特别是涉及移情,在12个月的随访中,产生了与腰痛强度、身体功能和HRQOL相关的显著和临床相关的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Health Professions-Complementary and Manual Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
118
期刊最新文献
Impact of a clinician-directed educational program on communicating with patients regarding gun violence at two community urban healthcare centers. A comprehensive review of clinical experiences and extracurricular activities for US premedical students applying to osteopathic medical schools. Recent and future trends in osteopathic orthopedic surgery residency match rates following the transition to a single accreditation system. Effectiveness of a program director for osteopathic medical education to support osteopathic recognition at a training site with multiple programs. Improving vascular access knowledge and assessment skill of hemodialysis staff.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1