Attitudes, beliefs, and recommendations for persistent low back pain patients: cross-sectional surveys of students and faculty at a chiropractic college.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1186/s12998-024-00530-7
Ryan D Muller, Jesse Cooper, Jordan A Gliedt, Katherine A Pohlman
{"title":"Attitudes, beliefs, and recommendations for persistent low back pain patients: cross-sectional surveys of students and faculty at a chiropractic college.","authors":"Ryan D Muller, Jesse Cooper, Jordan A Gliedt, Katherine A Pohlman","doi":"10.1186/s12998-024-00530-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the use of chiropractic care for persistent low back pain (PLBP) is prevalent, chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs related to PLBP patients are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes, beliefs and activity/work recommendations of students and faculty at a chiropractic college regarding PLBP patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and clinical vignettes were requested to be completed by chiropractic students and faculty at Parker University in April 2018. Higher HC-PAIRS scores indicate stronger beliefs that PLBP justifies disability and limitation of activities. Activity and work recommendations from clinical vignettes were rated as \"adequate\", \"neutral\", or \"inadequate\", as defined in previous literature. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and logistic regression were used to analyze results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Student and faculty response rates were 63.6% and 25.9%, respectively. Faculty mean HC-PAIRS scores (3.66 [SD:0.88]) were significantly lower than students' (4.41 [SD:0.71]). The percentage of faculty providing \"adequate\" activity (62.1%) and work (41.0%) recommendations was significantly greater than the percentage of students (activity: 33.9%, work: 21.2%) (p < 0.05). Higher HC-PAIRS scores in students were associated with decreased odds of providing \"adequate\" activity and work recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Student and faculty attitudes and beliefs, and students' activity/work recommendations were found to be dissimilar to those from similar studies and less congruent with CPG recommendations. Lower HC-PAIRS scores increased the odds of students providing \"adequate\" activity and work recommendations to patients with PLBP. Results from this study may help guide future research and training opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48572,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10905815/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & Manual Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-024-00530-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the use of chiropractic care for persistent low back pain (PLBP) is prevalent, chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs related to PLBP patients are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes, beliefs and activity/work recommendations of students and faculty at a chiropractic college regarding PLBP patients.

Methods: The Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and clinical vignettes were requested to be completed by chiropractic students and faculty at Parker University in April 2018. Higher HC-PAIRS scores indicate stronger beliefs that PLBP justifies disability and limitation of activities. Activity and work recommendations from clinical vignettes were rated as "adequate", "neutral", or "inadequate", as defined in previous literature. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and logistic regression were used to analyze results.

Results: Student and faculty response rates were 63.6% and 25.9%, respectively. Faculty mean HC-PAIRS scores (3.66 [SD:0.88]) were significantly lower than students' (4.41 [SD:0.71]). The percentage of faculty providing "adequate" activity (62.1%) and work (41.0%) recommendations was significantly greater than the percentage of students (activity: 33.9%, work: 21.2%) (p < 0.05). Higher HC-PAIRS scores in students were associated with decreased odds of providing "adequate" activity and work recommendations.

Conclusions: Student and faculty attitudes and beliefs, and students' activity/work recommendations were found to be dissimilar to those from similar studies and less congruent with CPG recommendations. Lower HC-PAIRS scores increased the odds of students providing "adequate" activity and work recommendations to patients with PLBP. Results from this study may help guide future research and training opportunities.

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
针对顽固性腰背痛患者的态度、信念和建议:对脊骨神经科学学院师生的横断面调查。
背景:虽然脊骨神经科治疗顽固性腰背痛(PLBP)的做法很普遍,但脊骨神经科医生对腰背痛患者的态度和信念却不完全清楚。本研究旨在评估脊骨神经科学学院师生对持续性腰背痛患者的态度、信念和活动/工作建议:2018年4月,帕克大学脊骨神经科学专业的师生应要求完成了 "医护人员疼痛与损伤关系量表"(HC-PAIRS)和临床小故事。HC-PAIRS 分数越高,表明越相信 PLBP 证明残疾和活动受限是合理的。根据以往文献的定义,临床小故事中的活动和工作建议被评为 "充分"、"中性 "或 "不充分"。分析结果采用了描述性统计、独立 t 检验和逻辑回归等方法:学生和教师的回复率分别为 63.6% 和 25.9%。教职员工的 HC-PAIRS 平均得分(3.66 [SD:0.88] 分)明显低于学生(4.41 [SD:0.71] 分)。提供 "充分 "活动建议(62.1%)和工作建议(41.0%)的教职员工比例明显高于学生(活动:33.9%,工作:21.2%)(P 结论:学生和教职员工的态度和信念均不一致:研究发现,学生和教师的态度和信念以及学生的活动/工作建议与类似研究的结果不同,与 CPG 建议的一致性较低。较低的 HC-PAIRS 分数会增加学生向 PLBP 患者提供 "适当 "活动和工作建议的几率。本研究的结果可能有助于指导未来的研究和培训机会。
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
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
15.80%
发文量
48
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Chiropractic & Manual Therapies publishes manuscripts on all aspects of evidence-based information that is clinically relevant to chiropractors, manual therapists and related health care professionals. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies is an open access journal that aims to provide chiropractors, manual therapists and related health professionals with clinically relevant, evidence-based information. Chiropractic and other manual therapies share a relatively broad diagnostic practice and treatment scope, emphasizing the structure and function of the body''s musculoskeletal framework (especially the spine). The practices of chiropractic and manual therapies are closely associated with treatments including manipulation, which is a key intervention. The range of services provided can also include massage, mobilisation, physical therapies, dry needling, lifestyle and dietary counselling, plus a variety of other associated therapeutic and rehabilitation approaches. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies continues to serve as a critical resource in this field, and as an open access publication, is more readily available to practitioners, researchers and clinicians worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Mechanisms of manipulation: a systematic review of the literature on immediate anatomical structural or positional changes in response to manually delivered high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation Social inequity in chiropractic utilisation - a cross-sectional study in Denmark, 2010 and 2017. Prognostic factors for long-term improvement in pain and disability among patients with persistent low back pain. A descriptive evaluation of a job analysis survey in the chiropractic profession in Switzerland - an update after more than 10 years. Towards the diagnosis of osteoporosis - contributions from coincidental diagnostic imaging findings in chiropractors' practice.
×
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