Chiropractic & osteopathy最新文献

Background: Longitudinal patterns of chiropractic use in the United States, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries, are not well documented. Using a nationally representative sample of older Medicare beneficiaries we describe the use of chiropractic over fifteen years, and classify chiropractic users by annual visit volume. We assess the characteristics that are associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, as well as between different levels of use.

Methods: We analyzed data from two linked sources: the baseline (1993-1994) interview responses of 5,510 self-respondents in the Survey on Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD), and their Medicare claims from 1993 to 2007. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with chiropractic use versus nonuse, and conditional upon use, to identify factors associated with high volume relative to lower volume use.

Results: There were 806 users of chiropractic in the AHEAD sample yielding a full period prevalence for 1993-2007 of 14.6%. Average annual prevalence between 1993 and 2007 was 4.8% with a range from 4.1% to 5.4%. Approximately 42% of the users consumed chiropractic services only in a single calendar year while 38% used chiropractic in three or more calendar years. Chiropractic users were more likely to be women, white, overweight, have pain, have multiple comorbid conditions, better self-rated health, access to transportation, higher physician utilization levels, live in the Midwest, and live in an area with fewer physicians per capita. Among chiropractic users, 16% had at least one year in which they exceeded Medicare's "soft cap" of 12 visits per calendar year. These over-the-cap users were more likely to have arthritis and mobility limitations, but were less likely to have a high school education. Additionally, these over-the-cap individuals accounted for 58% of total chiropractic claim volume. High volume users saw chiropractors the most among all types of providers, even more than family practice and internal medicine combined.

Conclusion: There is substantial heterogeneity in the patterns of use of chiropractic services among older adults. In spite of the variability of use patterns, however, there are not many characteristics that distinguish high volume users from lower volume users. While high volume users accounted for a significant portion of claims, the enforcement of a hard cap on annual visits by Medicare would not significantly decrease overall claim volume. Further research to understand the factors causing high volume chiropractic utilization among older Americans is warranted to discern between patterns of "need" and patterns of "health maintenance".

Background: Considering the increasing use of alternative therapies for children, it is appropriate to determine the demographic profile of pediatric patients entering a chiropractic clinic.

Methods: Collection of demographic data including age, gender, condition at presentation, previous clinicians consulted and medical referral rates of pediatric patients presenting to a chiropractic teaching clinic between 2006 and 2010.

Results: Over-all, 20.5% of patients were aged between two days and 15 years and classified as pediatric patients. The most common presenting complaint was musculoskeletal (35%). Excess crying (30%) was the most common complaint in the largest presenting age group which was under 12 weeks of age (62.3%). All children had previously presented for medical care for the same condition. Most (83%) of the infant patients under 12 weeks of age were referred for care by a medical practitioner.

Conclusion: Parents commonly presented their child for care at this chiropractic clinic with a recommendation from a medical practitioner. The most common complaints were musculoskeletal and excessive crying conditions and the most prevalent age group was under 12 weeks of age.

Background: Ice hockey is an international sport. Injuries occur in a full body fashion, to a number of tissues, commonly through body contact. There is a lack of literature documenting the scope of sports chiropractic practice. Thus, it was the aim to document the type, scope and severity of conditions presenting to, and the treatment provided by, the New Zealand team chiropractor acting as a primary health provider for the duration of the 2007 World Ice Hockey Championships.

Methods: All conditions presenting were recorded. Diagnosis was recorded along with clinical parameters of injury: injury type, severity, mechanism and whether referral or advanced imaging was required. All treatment provided was continuously recorded, including information on the number of treatments required and the reason, duration, type and location of treatment.

Results: Players presented for diagnosis of injury 50 times. Muscle (34%), joint (24%) and tendon injuries (18%) were most common. Players presented with a new injury 76% of the time. Most injuries had been present for less than one week (84%), with 53% occurring through a contact mechanism. Injuries were common at training and match locations. Only two injuries required the player to stop playing or training, both of which were referred for advanced imaging. During the study, 134 treatment consultations were rendered to 45 player injuries. Eighty per-cent of injuries were managed with four or less treatments. Three quarters of treatment was provided at training locations with treatment duration predominantly being between 11-15 minutes (71%) and 16-20 minutes (27%). Most treatment delivered was passive in nature (71%) although combination active and passive care was provided (27%). Treatment typically involved joint (81%) and soft tissue based therapies (81%) and was delivered in a full body manner.

Conclusions: This study documented the injury profile of ice hockey at an international level of competition. It documented the conditions presenting to a chiropractor for diagnosis and the treatment provided. Treatment was consistent with that recommended for chiropractic management of athletic injuries. This documentation of sports chiropractic scope of practice fills a void in the literature and assists in determining a role for sports chiropractors as primary health providers or in multidisciplinary sports management teams.

The World Health Organization has recently added Interprofessional Education (IPE) to its global health agenda recognizing it as a necessary component of all health professionals' education. We suggest mandatory interprofessional shadowing experiences as a mechanism to be used by chiropractic institutions to address this agenda. IPE initiatives of other professions (pharmacy and medicine) are described along with chiropractic. This relative comparison of professions local to our jurisdiction in Ontario, Canada is made so that the chiropractic profession may take note that they are behind other health care providers in implementing IPE.Interprofessional shadowing experiences would likely take place in a multi-disciplinary clinical setting. We offer an example of how two separate professions within a Family Health Team (FHT) can work together in such a setting to enhance both student learning and patient care. For adult learners, using interprofessional shadowing experiences with learner-derived and active objectives across diverse health professional groups may help to improve the educational experience. Mandatory interprofessional shadowing experiences for chiropractors during their training can enhance future collaborative practice and provide success in reaching a goal common to each profession - improved patient care.

Background: The "Put Prevention into Practice" campaign of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) was launched with the dissemination of the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services that recommended standards of clinical care for various prevention activities, including preventive clinical strategies to reduce the risk of adverse drug events. We explored whether nonprescribing clinicians such as chiropractors may contribute to advancing drug safety initiatives by identifying potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients, and by bringing suspected adverse drug events to the attention of the prescribing clinicians.

Methods: Mail survey of US chiropractors about their detection of potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients.

Results: Over half of responding chiropractors (62%) reported having identified a suspected adverse drug event occurring in one of their chiropractic patients. The severity of suspected drug-related events detected ranged from mild to severe.

Conclusions: Chiropractors or other nonprescribing clinicians may be in a position to detect potential adverse drug events in the community. These detection and reporting mechanisms should be standardized and policies related to clinical case management of suspected adverse drug events occurring in their patients should be developed.

Background: Research into attitudes about chiropractors who are no longer engaged in active clinical practice is non-existent. Yet non-practicing chiropractors (NPCs) represent a valid sub-group worthy of study.

Aim: The purpose of this research was to assess attrition attitudes of NPCs about the chiropractic profession and develop a scale to assess such attitudes.

Methods: A 48 item survey was developed using the PsychData software. This survey included 35 Likert-style items assessing various aspects of the profession namely financial, educational, psychosocial and political. An internet discussion site where NPCs may be members was accessed for recruitment purposes.

Results: A total of 70 valid responses were received for analysis. A majority of respondents were male with 66% being in non-practice status for 3 to 5 years and less with 43% indicating that they had graduated since the year 2000. Most respondents were employed either in other healthcare professions and non-chiropractic education. A majority of NPCs believed that business ethics in chiropractic were questionable and that overhead expense and student loans were factors in practice success. A majority of NPCs were in associate practice at one time with many believing that associates were encouraged to prolong the care of patients and that associate salaries were not fair. Most NPCs surveyed believed that chiropractic was not a good career choice and would not recommend someone to become a chiropractor. From this survey, a 12 item scale was developed called the "chiropractor attrition attitude scale" for future research. Reliability analysis of this novel scale demonstrated a coefficient alpha of 0.90.

Conclusion: The low response rate indicates that findings cannot be generalized to the NPC population. This study nonetheless demonstrates that NPCs attrition attitudes can be assessed. The lack of a central database of NPCs is a challenge to future research. Appropriate investigation of attrition within the chiropractic profession would be helpful in the analysis of attitudes regarding both chiropractic education and practice. Further research is needed in this area.

Background: One of the debates regarding the role of chiropractors is whether or not they should be considered as primary healthcare practitioners. Primary care is often used to describe chiropractic but without any definition of what is meant by the term. Primary healthcare itself has many definitions and this adds to the problem. Existing research literature, based mostly in the USA, suggests that the use of the title "primary healthcare professional" by chiropractors is central to the identity of the profession. It has also been suggested that the concept of primary care is misused by chiropractors because they have not examined the concept in detail and thus do not understand it. For the sake of quality of patient care and for the legitimacy of the profession, chiropractors in the UK need to agree on their healthcare role. This study aimed to examine the opinions of chiropractors towards the use of the term primary healthcare when applied to chiropractic practice within the UK.

Methods: A sequential study of exploratory design was used; this model is characterised by an initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis that precedes and informs the quantitative phase of data collection and analysis. In this study, interviews with members of chiropractic teaching faculty were used to inform the development of a questionnaire used to survey the opinions of chiropractors in the UK.

Results: There was a general consensus of opinion that chiropractors are primary contact practitioners, who work in a primary healthcare setting and that to be able to fulfil this healthcare role, chiropractors must be able to diagnose patients and refer when required. Participants did not feel that chiropractors are able to treat all of the most common medical conditions that present in a primary healthcare setting.

Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that chiropractors in the UK view their role as one of a primary contact healthcare practitioner and that this view is held irrespective of the country in which they were educated or the length of time in practice.Further research needs to be developed to evaluate the findings of the current study within a wider healthcare context. In particular the opinions of other healthcare professionals towards the role of chiropractors in healthcare, need to be examined in more detail.

Background: The risk associated with cervical manipulation is controversial. Research in this area is widely variable but as yet the risk is not easily quantifiable. This presents a problem when informing the patient of risks when seeking consent and information may be withheld due to the fear of patient withdrawal from care. As yet, there is a lack of research into the frequency of risk disclosure and consequent withdrawal from manipulative treatment as a result. This study seeks to investigate the reality of this and to obtain insight into the attitudes of chiropractors towards informed consent and disclosure.

Methods: Questionnaires were posted to 200 UK chiropractors randomly selected from the register of the General Chiropractic Council.

Results: A response rate of 46% (n = 92) was achieved. Thirty-three per cent (n = 30) respondents were female and the mean number of years in practice was 10. Eighty-eight per cent considered explanation of the risks associated with any recommended treatment important when obtaining informed consent. However, only 45% indicated they always discuss this with patients in need of cervical manipulation. When asked whether they believed discussing the possibility of a serious adverse reaction to cervical manipulation could increase patient anxiety to the extent there was a strong possibility the patient would refuse treatment, 46% said they believed this could happen. Nonetheless, 80% said they believed they had a moral/ethical obligation to disclose risk associated with cervical manipulation despite these concerns. The estimated number of withdrawals throughout respondents' time in practice was estimated at 1 patient withdrawal for every 2 years in practice.

Conclusion: The withdrawal rate from cervical manipulation as a direct consequence of the disclosure of associated serious risks appears unfounded. However, notwithstanding legal obligations, reluctance to disclose risk due to fear of increasing patient anxiety still remains, despite acknowledgement of moral and ethical responsibility.

Background: Our recent investigations have demonstrated that cell cultures from subjects, who received a single spinal manipulative treatment in the upper thoracic spine, show increased capacity for the production of the key immunoregulatory cytokine, interleukin-2. However, it has not been determined if such changes influence the response of the immune effector cells. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether, in the same subjects, spinal manipulation-related augmentation of the in vitro interleukin-2 synthesis is associated with the modulation of interleukin 2-dependent and/or interleukin-2-induced humoral immune response (antibody synthesis).

Methods: A total of seventy-four age and sex-matched healthy asymptomatic subjects were studied. The subjects were assigned randomly to: venipuncture control (n = 22), spinal manipulative treatment without cavitation (n = 25) or spinal manipulative treatment associated with cavitation (n = 27) groups. Heparinized blood samples were obtained from the subjects before (baseline) and then at 20 minutes and 2 hours post-treatment. Immunoglobulin (antibody) synthesis was induced in cultures of peripheral blood mononuclear cells by stimulation with conventional pokeweed mitogen or by application of human recombinant interleukin-2. Determinations of the levels of immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M production in culture supernatants were performed by specific immunoassays.

Results: The baseline levels of immunoglobulin synthesis induced by pokeweed mitogen or human recombinant interleukin-2 stimulation were comparable in all groups. No significant changes in the production of pokeweed mitogen-induced immunoglobulins were observed during the post-treatment period in any of the study groups. In contrast, the production of interleukin-2 -induced immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M was significantly increased in cultures from subjects treated with spinal manipulation. At 20 min post-manipulation, immunoglobulin G synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation, relative to that in cultures from subjects who received manipulation without cavitation and venipuncture alone. At 2 hr post-treatment, immunoglobulin M synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation relative to the venipuncture group. There were no quantitative alterations within the population of peripheral blood B or T lymphocytes in the studied cultures.

Conclusion: Spinal manipulative treatment does not increase interleukin-2 -dependent polyclonal immunoglobulin synthesis by mitogen-activated B cells. However, antibody synthesis induced by interleukin-2 alone can be, at least temporarily, augmented following spinal manipulation. Thus, under certain physiological conditions spinal manipulative treatment might influence interleukin-2 -regulated biological res

Background: Maintenance care (MC) is relatively commonly used among chiropractors. However, factual information is needed on its indications for use.

Objectives: This study had two objectives: 1) to describe which role patients' past history and treatment outcome play in chiropractors' decision to use MC in patients with low back pain, 2) to investigate if the chiropractors' clinical/educational background has an effect on the frequency of using MC and their indications for use of MC.

Method: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all 413 chiropractors practising in Denmark. Its main part consisted of 3 sets of 4 questions relating to one basic case of low back pain. For each case, the chiropractors were asked if they would use MC as they self-defined the term (no/perhaps/yes). There were questions also on gender, age, educational and clinical background, and on the number of MC patients seen by these chiropractors. Their decision to recommend MC was reported. Associations between the demographic variables and 1) the frequency of MC-use and 2) their indications for use of MC were tested through multivariate analysis.

Results: The response rate was 72%. Non-indications for MC were: 1) a good outcome combined with no previous events, or 2) a past history of LBP and gradual worsening with treatment. Indications for MC were a good outcome combined with a previous history of low back pain between once a month and once a year. The mean proportion of MC patients per week were 22% (SD 19), ranging from 0% to 100%. The use of MC was highest among experienced chiropractors, those who were educated in North America, and clinic owners. However, in Denmark most chiropractors graduated before 1999, are educated abroad, whereas most chiropractors thereafter are educated in Denmark. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether this difference relates to education or years of experience. There were no associations detected between demographic variables and the indications for MC.

Conclusions: There is relatively high consensus on when MC should and should not be used. A history of prior low back pain combined with a positive response to treatment encourages the use of MC, whereas no previous history of back pain or a worsening of symptoms discourages the use of MC. There seems to be a difference in the proportional use of MC between chiropractors with more experience educated in North America and those with less experience educated in Denmark.