Chiropractic & Manual Therapies最新文献

Background: The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain.

Methods: A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators.

Results: The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures.

Conclusion: Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted.

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.

Background: Approximately 1% of low back pain is estimated to be caused by serious systemic diseases, including cancer, infection, or abdominal aortic dissection. This study aimed to determine the frequency of execution of non-MSK physical examination procedures among Quebec chiropractors and to identify the clinical context that prompts them to use these physical examination procedures.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey containing 44 questions administered to a random sample of Quebec chiropractors using a succession of online, postal and phone questionnaires. The 4-part survey questionnaire contained six demographic questions, 28 single-choice questions to determine the frequency of execution of non-MSK physical examination procedures, seven short clinical vignettes for which the respondents had to select the non-MSK examinations that would be required, and two questions inquiring about the proportion of new patients for which participants' felt non-MSK examinations were necessary and whether appropriate assessments were performed. The questionnaire was pilot tested, and feedback received integrated prior to administration. We conducted descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and an ANOVA.

Results: The survey was completed by 182 chiropractors (response rate: 36.4%). The most commonly non-musculoskeletal examination performed daily were blood pressure (12.1%) and cranial nerves (4.9%). The most common tests never performed were oxygen saturation (68.7%), cardiac auscultation (69.2%), tibio-brachial index (71.4%), breast (86.8%), rectal (96.7%), testicular (95.6%), and vaginal (99.9%) exams. Female chiropractors and Quebec University in Trois-Rivières graduates reported that a significantly higher proportion of their new patients required a non-musculoskeletal physical examination compared to male participants (37.2% vs 28.3%) or Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College graduates (33.9% vs 19.9%). Reason for not performing a physical examination included the belief that another healthcare professional was better positioned to perform and/or interpret the related tests (76.4%).

Conclusions: Vital signs and cranial nerve examinations were the most frequency performed non-musculoskeletal examinations reported by chiropractors. Apart from the genitourinary exam almost never performed, most participants chose non-musculoskeletal examinations deemed appropriate for the patient's presentation.

Background: Databases have become important tools in improving health care. Care Response is a database containing information on tens of thousands of chiropractic patients internationally. It has been collecting patient-reported outcomes and patient satisfaction information for more than 10 years. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the understanding of patient perceptions and priorities for chiropractic care by analysing free text entered into the patient reported experience measure (PREM) questionnaires within the Care Response system.

Methods: There were two questions of interest on the PREM for this study. One requested information about "good points" patients perceived about patients' care experience, and the other requested information on "improvements" that could make the experience better. We conducted a word frequency analysis using a word counting macro in Microsoft Word, then used those results as a starting point for a qualitative analysis. Data were collected on 30 May 2022.

Results: The people who participated in the Care Response system often reported positive experiences with their chiropractors, including that they had reduced pain, improved function, and felt validated in their clinical condition. In addition, they appreciated having diagnostic and treatment procedures explained to them. They valued friendly, professional, and on-time service. The negative experiences were the opposite: being rushed through treatment, that the treatment was not worth the cost, or that they weren't treated professionally, empathetically, or with respect for them as individuals. The most important themes that emerged under "good points" were satisfaction (with care), value (as a person), safety, comfort, and professionalism. Their opposites, dissatisfaction, lack of value, lack of safety, lack of comfort, and lack of professionalism emerged as the most important themes under "improvements". We report some nuances of patient experience that have not previously been explored in the literature.

Conclusions: Respondents seemed to value effective care provided in a safe, professional, friendly, and aesthetically pleasing environment. Chiropractors should note these priorities and engage with patients according to them. Education institutions should consider how good practice in these areas might be incorporated into curricula.

Study design: Single-centre, two-parallel group, methodological randomised controlled trial to assess blinding feasibility.

Background: Trials of manual therapy interventions of the back face methodological challenges regarding blinding feasibility and success. We assessed the feasibility of blinding an active manual soft tissue mobilisation and control intervention of the back. We also assessed whether blinding is feasible among outcome assessors and explored factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment.

Methods: On 7-8 November 2022, 24 participants were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to active or control manual interventions of the back. The active group (n = 11) received soft tissue mobilisation of the lumbar spine. The control group (n = 13) received light touch over the thoracic region with deep breathing exercises. The primary outcome was blinding of participants immediately after a one-time intervention session, as measured by the Bang blinding index (Bang BI). Bang BI ranges from -1 (complete opposite perceptions of intervention received) to 1 (complete correct perceptions), with 0 indicating 'random guessing'-balanced 'active' and 'control' perceptions within an intervention arm. Secondary outcomes included blinding of outcome assessors and factors influencing perceptions about intervention assignment among both participants and outcome assessors, explored via thematic analysis.

Results: 24 participants were analysed following an intention-to-treat approach. 55% of participants in the active manual soft tissue mobilisation group correctly perceived their group assignment beyond chance immediately after intervention (Bang BI: 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25 to 0.84]), and 8% did so in the control group (0.08 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.53]). Bang BIs in outcome assessors were 0.09 (-0.12 to 0.30) and -0.10 (-0.29 to 0.08) for active and control participants, respectively. Participants and outcome assessors reported varying factors related to their perceptions about intervention assignment.

Conclusions: Blinding of participants allocated to an active soft tissue mobilisation of the back was not feasible in this methodological trial, whereas blinding of participants allocated to the control intervention and outcome assessors was adequate. Findings are limited due to imprecision and suboptimal generalisability to clinical settings. Careful thinking and consideration of blinding in manual therapy trials is warranted and needed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05822947 (retrospectively registered).

During the last few decades, the field of rehabilitation has experienced substantial development, growth, and acceptance. Rehabilitation addresses the impact of a health condition on a person’s everyday life by optimizing their functioning and reducing their experience of disability. Rehabilitation expands the focus of health beyond preventative and curative care to ensure people with a health condition can remain as independent as possible and participate in education, work and meaningful life roles [16]. A definition of rehabilitation for research purposes has been recently published [7]. Scientific and clinical research have generated a body of knowledge that strongly supports the use of many rehabilitation interventions with positive outcomes in various populations and health conditions.

We also have now a better understanding of the growing global need, demand, and recognition of rehabilitation around the world. For example, it has been estimated that 2.41 billion people in the world could benefit from rehabilitation services. This means that at least one in every three persons in the world needs rehabilitation at some point during the course of their disease or injury [2]. This figure has most likely increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The need for rehabilitation increased by 63% between 1990 and 2017 due to the aging population, the increasing prevalence of noncommunicable health conditions, and the shifting epidemiological profile in most countries [2]. Finally, according to the 2022 Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities, approximately 1.3 billion people or 16% of the world’s population has moderate to severe levels of disability associated with the underlying health conditions and impairments [13]. Now more than ever before, it is crucial that rehabilitation is available and accessible to populations globally according to their needs. The important contribution of rehabilitation to the functioning, including social and occupational participation and well-being of populations worldwide, can no longer be denied or delayed. Rehabilitation is critical for the attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3, Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages [9].

Notwithstanding the foregoing arguments, there continues to be a high unmet need for rehabilitation globally, with some low- and middle-income countries reporting unmet needs up to 50% of those who could benefit from rehabilitation. Rehabilitation services are not accessible to many people around the world [5]. Many of those in need do not have access because of the failure, at least partially, to effectively plan for rehabilitation services. Many nations and health systems have not implemented policy measures that recognize rehabilitation as an essential component of universal health coverage [6, 8]. Health policy, planning, and decision-making for rehabilitation often require more local evidence to adequa

Background: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP.

Methods: We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF.

Results: Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79).

Conclusions: Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.