Background: Inequity in healthcare utilisation refers to differences between groups that remain after adjustment for need for health care. To our knowledge, no previous studies have aimed to assess social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in a general population. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in the general Danish population adjusted for health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care.
Methods: A population-based repeated cross-sectional study design was used based on the Danish National Health Survey in 2010 and 2017. Overall, we included 288,099 individuals aged 30 years or older in 2010 or 2017. For each individual, information on chiropractic utilisation, socioeconomic status, and health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care was retrieved from nationwide registers using the unique personal identification number. Measures of health status included demographics, poor self-rated physical health, activity limitations, musculoskeletal pain, number of musculoskeletal conditions, and number of chronic diseases. We investigated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation (yes, no) using logistic regression adjusted for health status, stratified by sex and year. Three characteristics of socioeconomic status (educational level, employment status and income) were investigated. To further quantify the degree of social inequity in chiropractic utilisation, we estimated the concentration index of inequity for each of the three characteristics of socioeconomic status.
Results: We found significantly higher odds of chiropractic utilisation among individuals with short or medium/long education compared with individuals with elementary education, and among employed individuals compared with individuals who were unemployed, receiving disability pension or retired. Furthermore, the odds of chiropractic utilisation increased with higher income. The concentration index indicated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in favour of individuals with higher socioeconomic status, with income and employment status contributing more to inequity than educational level.
Conclusion: The study demonstrated social inequity in chiropractic utilisation in Denmark beyond differences in health status as a proxy of need for chiropractic care in the general population. The results suggest that new strategies are required if equal treatment for equal need is the goal.
Background: Prognostic research in low back pain (LBP) is essential for understanding and managing the condition. This study aimed to, (1) describe the proportions with mild-moderate and severe pain and disability at baseline, 1-year and 4-year follow-up, and (2) investigate prognostic factors for improvement in pain and disability over 4 years in a cohort of secondary care LBP patients.
Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of patients with LBP aged 18-40 years recruited from a non-surgical outpatient spine clinic between March 2011 and October 2013 (n = 1037). Questionnaires were collected at baseline, 1-year, and 4-year follow-up. Disability was assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ 0-100) and pain intensity using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS 0-10). 'Mild-moderate pain' was defined as NRS < 7 and 'severe pain' as NRS ≥ 7. Likewise, 'mild-moderate disability' was defined as RMDQ < 58.3, and 'severe disability' was RMDQ ≥ 58.3. In the prognostic analysis, improvement in pain and disability over 4 years was defined as meeting both criteria: decrease of ≥ 2 on the NRS and of ≥ 20.8 on the RMDQ. Sixteen candidate prognostic factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression.
Results: Among patients with information available at all three time points (n = 241), 54%/48% had persistent mild-moderate pain/disability, while only 7%/15% had persistent severe pain/disability. Of patients included in the multivariate prognostic analysis regarding improvement over 4 years (n = 498), 32% had improved in pain and disability after 4 years. Positive associations were found for pain intensity (OR 1.34 [95%CI: 1.17-1.54]), disability (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.02]), and regular employment or studying (OR 1.67 [1.06-2.64]), and negative associations for episode duration (OR 0.99 [0.99-1.00]) and risk of persistent pain (OR 0.58 [0.38-0.88]).
Conclusion: Patients with persistent LBP in secondary care had mostly mild-moderate pain and disability consistently at all three time points, with few having consistently severe symptoms over 4 years. Moreover, approximately half of the included patients improved in pain and disability. We found that pain intensity, disability, episode duration, regular employment or studying, and risk of persistent pain predicted a long-term improvement. However, the limited availability of complete follow-up data may affect generalisability.
Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to update the results of the first Swiss Job Analysis Survey in 2009 with regard to the demographics of the chiropractors and their patients, practice characteristics, interprofessional collaboration, the importance of imaging, and job satisfaction.
Methods: In April 2020, the adapted 2009 questionnaire was electronically sent to all members of the Swiss Chiropractic Association ChiroSuisse (N = 316). Only complete questionnaires were included in the descriptive analysis. Demographic data were compared to all ChiroSuisse members.
Results: The response rate was 76.3%. The mean age of the participants was 49.9 ± 12.3 years and 62.2% were male. Among the younger chiropractors (≤ 15 years of professional experience), 51.6% were male. Almost half of the participants worked in a joint office and one in five worked in a multidisciplinary setting. The typical chiropractic patient was middle-aged, female and suffered most frequently from acute lower back/pelvis pain and second most frequently from neck pain. Diversified osseous adjustment was the most commonly used technique, followed by advice on activities of daily living and trigger point therapy. Images (X-ray, CT, MRI) were ordered in less than 20% of the patients. 95% of the chiropractors were satisfied with their career choice.
Conclusions: No changes to 2009 were observed in terms of the typical patient or the applied techniques. However, the Swiss chiropractors were more experienced, to a larger proportion female, more often worked in multidisciplinary settings, and ordered fewer images. Job satisfaction among Swiss chiropractors was high.
Background: Osteoporosis is significantly associated with fractures and burdens the health of especially older people. Osteoporotic fractures cause pain, disability, and increased mortality. Early diagnosis of osteoporosis allows earlier initiation of treatment, thereby reducing the risk of osteoporotic fractures. Chiropractors encounter potential osteoporotic patients daily, and perform radiological evaluation of these and other patients, including evaluation of X-rays done for other purposes than osteoporosis. Therefore, chiropractors may identify vertebral fractures, vertebral deformity or osteopenia not otherwise suspected or recorded.
Methods: This study examines procedures available to the chiropractor to describe conventional X-rays with the focus of osteoporosis related findings. We review the indications for radiological examination in chiropractic practice, and in the realm of osteoporosis we describe radiological methods available for examination of conventional radiographs, and the necessity of inter-disciplinary communication.
Results: National guidelines are available regarding referral for X-rays in chiropractic practice. Standardized protocols ensure image acquisition of the highest quality in the chiropractors' radiological department. Conventional X-ray examination is not indicated on clinical suspicion of osteoporosis alone, as bone mineral density testing is the diagnostic test. Radiological assessment of all available X-rays of patients above the age of 50 years should include evaluation of the bone quality, and hip and vertebral fracture assessment. The Singh index, Genant Semi-Quantitative tool (GSQ), and Algorithm-Based Qualitative method (ABQ) should be used consistently during interpretation. Referral for additional imaging and evaluation should be prompt and systematic when needed.
Conclusions: This article presents an overview of evidence-based radiological procedures for the purpose of promoting early diagnosis of osteoporosis. We present recommendations to the clinicians where we propose an opportunistic evaluation of X-rays, done for any reason, which include systematic evaluation of bone quality, presence of hip and vertebral fractures, and vertebral deformation of all patients above the age of 50 years. Detailed referral to healthcare professionals for further diagnostic evaluation is performed when needed. Consistent, high-quality radiological procedures in chiropractic practices could feasibly contribute to the timely diagnosis of osteoporosis, ultimately minimizing the impact of osteoporosis-related complications on patients' health.
Background: Radiography is commonly used in the assessment of spinal disorders, despite a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes or additional benefit to the patient. There is disagreement amongst chiropractors regarding the appropriate use of radiography for clinical management. This study aims to qualitatively explore chiropractors' perceptions on the use of spinal radiographs in clinical practice with respect to how they determine when to order radiographs; and how they use radiographs to inform clinical management.
Methods: Online qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 Australian chiropractors who currently manage patients with spinal disorders. Convienence, snowball, and purposive sampling strategies were used to ensure an appropriate breadth and depth of participant characterisitcs and beliefs. Interview data were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.
Results: Three themes were developed to describe how chiropractors determined when to order radiographs. These themes included specific findings from the clinical encounter that may inform clinical management, their perceptions of radiation risk, and the influence of clinical experience/intuition. Three themes and four subthemes were developed for how chiropractors use radiographs to inform their management. These themes explored the use of radiography for the application of chiropractic technique, as well as the role of radiographs in predicting patient prognosis, and as an educational tool to provide reassurance.
Conclusion: Australian chiropractors' decision-making around spinal radiography is diverse and can be influenced by a number of clinical and external factors. Previously unexplored uses of spinal radiography in clinical practice were highlighted. Some chiropractors reported potential benefits of radiography that are currently not supported by research evidence. Future research should address how radiographic findings are reported to patients with spinal disorders and how this could be optimised to improve patient outcomes.
Background: Despite the well-known benefits of physical activity, physical inactivity is presently a global health pandemic. Allied healthcare providers, such as chiropractors, knowingly recognise the importance of physical activity and are prepared to routinely discuss and/or counsel patients on this topic; however, little is known about Australian chiropractors in the physical activity setting. Our aim was to explore and identify factors associated with physical activity promotion among Australian chiropractors, including their knowledge of the physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and their own levels of physical activity.
Methods: From February to May 2021, a convenience sample of Australian chiropractors completed an online survey. Items assessed by Likert scale included: physical activity promotion frequency, with the type, quantity, barriers, perceptions, and feasibility. We asked questions about their familiarity with, and knowledge of, Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines, chiropractors' own physical activity, and whether the chiropractors met activity guidelines. Survey responses were descriptively reported. Univariable logistic regression models explored factors explaining frequent physical activity promotion.
Results: Of 217 respondents, 64% reported that they frequently (≥ 70%) recommended a more physically active lifestyle. Only 15% often performed pre-exercise screening, 73% frequently prescribed resistance exercise, 19% reported time as the most frequent barrier, while 37% reported being not at all familiar with the guidelines. Univariable logistic regression models found male chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity, [odds ratio (OR) = 2.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-4.12)], while chiropractors who frequently treat children 0-3 years (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.28-0.87), children 4-18 years (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21-0.86), and pregnant women (OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.26-0.94) were less likely. Chiropractors were more likely to promote physical activity if they were familiar with the activity guidelines (OR = 2.9; 95% CI: 1.32-6.41), were confident promoting (OR = 11.6; 95% CI: 1.37-98.71) and prescribing physical activity programs (OR = 4.5; 95% CI: 2.03-9.99).
Conclusion: Most chiropractors confidently and regularly integrate physical activity into practice. Yet, despite acknowledging its importance, one third of chiropractors reported poor knowledge of the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines. Identifying barriers to the awareness, and implementation of physical activity guidelines should be further explored within chiropractic clinical settings.
Objectives: To assess the concurrent validity and inter-rater agreement of the diagnosis of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions using synchronous telehealth compared to standard in-person clinical diagnosis.
Methods: We searched five electronic databases for cross-sectional studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from inception to 28 September 2023. We included studies of participants presenting to a healthcare provider with an undiagnosed MSK complaint. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. Studies rated as overall low risk of bias were synthesized descriptively following best-evidence synthesis principles.
Results: We retrieved 6835 records and 16 full-text articles. Nine studies and 321 patients were included. Participants had MSK conditions involving the shoulder, elbow, low back, knee, lower limb, ankle, and multiple conditions. Comparing telehealth versus in-person clinical assessments, inter-rater agreement ranged from 40.7% agreement for people with shoulder pain to 100% agreement for people with lower limb MSK disorders. Concurrent validity ranged from 36% agreement for people with elbow pain to 95.1% agreement for people with lower limb MSK conditions.
Discussion: In cases when access to in-person care is constrained, our study implies that telehealth might be a feasible approach for the diagnosis of MSK conditions. These conclusions are based on small cross-sectional studies carried out by similar research teams with similar participant demographics. Additional research is required to improve the diagnostic precision of telehealth evaluations across a larger range of patient groups, MSK conditions, and diagnostic accuracy statistics.
Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity.
Methods: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes.
Results: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes.
Conclusion: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.
Background: Lumbar spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a common intervention used to treat low back pain (LBP); however, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms of SMT reducing pain measured through pain pressure threshold (PPT) have not been fully explored beyond an immediate timeframe (e.g., immediately or five-minutes following) referencing a control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT compared to deactivated ultrasound using PPT immediately following and 30-minutes following SMT.
Methods: A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial design was conducted between September to October 2023. Fifty-five participants were randomized into a control group of deactivated ultrasound (n = 29) or treatment group of right sidelying lumbar SMT (n = 26). PPT, recorded at the right posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS), was documented for each participant in each group prior to intervention, immediately, and 30-minutes after. A repeated measures ANOVA, with a post-hoc Bonferroni adjustment, was used to assess within-group and between-group differences in PPT. The significance level was set at a < 0.05 a priori.
Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the deactivated ultrasound and lumbar SMT groups immediately (p = .05) and 30-minutes (p = .02) following intervention. A significant difference in the lumbar SMT group was identified from baseline to immediately following (p < .001) and 30-minutes following (p < .001), but no differences between immediately following and 30-minutes following intervention (p = .10). The deactivated ultrasound group demonstrated a difference between baseline and immediately after intervention with a reduced PPT (p = .003), but no significant difference was found from baseline to 30-minutes (p = .11) or immediately after intervention to 30-minutes (p = 1.0).
Conclusion: A right sidelying lumbar manipulation increased PPT at the right PSIS immediately after that lasted to 30-minutes when compared to a deactivated ultrasound control group. Future studies should further explore beyond the immediate and short-term neurophysiological effects of lumbar SMT to validate these findings.
Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered on 4 December 2023 in ClinicalTrials (database registration number NCT06156605).
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：