Characteristics of Chiropractic Patients Being Treated for Chronic Low Back and Neck Pain

A qualitative analysis of free-text patient satisfaction responses in Care Response, a database of patient-reported outcome and experience measures

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.

Association between spinal manipulative therapy and lumbar spine reoperation after discectomy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo lumbar discectomy may experience ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy (LSR) and seek spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage these symptoms. We hypothesized that adults receiving SMT for LSR at least one year following lumbar discectomy would be less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT, over two years' follow-up.

METHODS

We searched a United States network of health records (TriNetX, Inc.) for adults aged ≥ 18 years with LSR and lumbar discectomy ≥ 1 year previous, without lumbar fusion or instrumentation, from 2003 to 2023. We divided patients into two cohorts: (1) chiropractic SMT, and (2) usual care without chiropractic SMT. We used propensity matching to adjust for confounding variables associated with lumbar spine reoperation (e.g., age, body mass index, nicotine dependence), calculated risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and explored cumulative incidence of reoperation and the number of SMT follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Following propensity matching there were 378 patients per cohort (mean age 61 years). Lumbar spine reoperation was less frequent in the SMT cohort compared to the usual care cohort (SMT: 7%; usual care: 13%), yielding an RR (95% CIs) of 0.55 (0.35-0.85; P = 0.0062). In the SMT cohort, 72% of patients had ≥ 1 follow-up SMT visit (median = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that adults experiencing LSR at least one year after lumbar discectomy who received SMT were less likely to undergo lumbar spine reoperation compared to matched controls not receiving SMT. While these findings hold promise for clinical implications, they should be corroborated by a prospective study including measures of pain, disability, and safety to confirm their relevance. We cannot exclude the possibility that our results stem from a generalized effect of engaging with a non-surgical clinician, a factor that may extend to related contexts such as physical therapy or acupuncture.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/vgrwz ).

Patient expectations and levels of satisfaction in chiropractic treatment for lumbar radiculopathy. A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Chiropractic patients are generally satisfied with the care received. It is unclear if this also applies to Danish patients with lumbar radiculopathy included in a standardised chiropractic care package (SCCP). This study aimed to investigate patient satisfaction and explore perspectives on the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy.

METHODS

An explanatory sequential mixed methods design with three separate phases was used. Phase one was a quantitative analysis based on a survey in a prospective cohort of patients with lumbar radiculopathy in an SCCP from 2018 to 2020. Patients rated their satisfaction with the examination, information, treatment effect, and overall management of their problem on a 0-10 scale. In phase two, six semi-structured interviews conducted in 2021 were used to gain further explanatory insights into the findings from phase one. Data were analysed using systematic text condensation. In phase three, the quantitative and qualitative data were merged in a narrative joint display to obtain a deeper understanding of the overall results.

RESULTS

Of 303 eligible patients, 238 responded to the survey. Of these, 80-90% were very satisfied (≥ 8) when asked about the examination, information, and overall management, whereas 50% were very satisfied with the treatment effect. The qualitative analysis led to the emergence of four themes: 'Understanding the standardised care packages', 'Expectations regarding consultation and treatment effect', 'Information about diagnosis and prognosis', and 'Interdisciplinary collaboration'. The joint display analysis showed that high patient satisfaction with the examination could be explained by the patients' feeling of being carefully and thoroughly examined by the chiropractor and by referrals to MRI. Advice and information given to patients on variations in symptoms and the expected prognosis were considered reassuring. Satisfaction with the chiropractor's coordination of care and with referral to other healthcare professionals was explained by the patients' positive experiences of coordinated care and their sense of alleviated responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients were satisfied with the SCCP for lumbar radiculopathy. From a patient's perspective, the consultation should include a thorough examination and a focus on communication and information relating to symptoms and prognosis, while expectations regarding the content and efficacy of the treatment should be addressed and aligned.

Clinician approaches to spinal manipulation for persistent spinal pain after lumbar surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to identify variables influencing clinicians' application of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for persistent spine pain after lumbar surgery (PSPS-2). We hypothesized markers of reduced clinical/surgical complexity would be associated with greater odds of applying SMT to the lumbar region, use of manual-thrust lumbar SMT, and SMT within 1-year post-surgery as primary outcomes; and chiropractors would have increased odds of using lumbar manual-thrust-SMT compared to other practitioners.

METHODS

Per our published protocol, observational studies describing adults receiving SMT for PSPS-2 were included. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, PEDro, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were searched from inception to January 6, 2022. Individual patient data (IPD) were requested from contact authors when needed for selection criteria. Data extraction and a customized risk-of-bias rubric were completed in duplicate. Odds ratios (ORs) for primary outcomes were calculated using binary logistic regressions, with covariates including age, sex, symptom distribution, provider, motion segments, spinal implant, and surgery-to-SMT interval.

RESULTS

71 articles were included describing 103 patients (mean age 52 ± 15, 55% male). The most common surgeries were laminectomy (40%), fusion (34%), and discectomy (29%). Lumbar SMT was used in 85% of patients; and of these patients was non-manual-thrust in 59%, manual-thrust in 33%, and unclear in 8%. Clinicians were most often chiropractors (68%). SMT was used > 1-year post-surgery in 66% of cases. While no primary outcomes reached significance, non-reduced motion segments approached significance for predicting use of lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 9.07 [0.97-84.64], P = 0.053). Chiropractors were significantly more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT (OR 32.26 [3.17-327.98], P = 0.003). A sensitivity analysis omitting high risk-of-bias cases (missing ≥ 25% IPD) revealed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians using SMT for PSPS-2 most often apply non-manual-thrust SMT to the lumbar spine, while chiropractors are more likely to use lumbar-manual-thrust SMT relative to other providers. As non-manual-thrust SMT may be gentler, the proclivity towards this technique suggests providers are cautious when applying SMT after lumbar surgery. Unmeasured variables such as patient or clinician preferences, or limited sample size may have influenced our findings. Large observational studies and/or international surveys are needed for an improved understanding of SMT use for PSPS-2. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42021250039).

Avoiding nocebo and other undesirable effects in chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy: An invitation to reflect

INTRODUCTION

While the placebo effect is increasingly recognised as a contributor to treatment effects in clinical practice, the nocebo and other undesirable effects are less well explored and likely underestimated. In the chiropractic, osteopathy and physiotherapy professions, some aspects of historical models of care may arguably increase the risk of nocebo effects.

PURPOSE

In this masterclass article, clinicians, researchers, and educators are invited to reflect on such possibilities, in an attempt to stimulate research and raise awareness for the mitigation of such undesirable effects.

IMPLICATIONS

This masterclass briefly introduces the nocebo effect and its underlying mechanisms. It then traces the historical development of chiropractic, osteopathy, and physiotherapy, arguing that there was and continues to be an excessive focus on the patient's body. Next, aspects of clinical practice, including communication, the therapeutic relationship, clinical rituals, and the wider social and economic context of practice are examined for their potential to generate nocebo and other undesirable effects. To aid reflection, a model to reflect on clinical practice and individual professions through the 'prism' of nocebo and other undesirable effects is introduced and illustrated. Finally, steps are proposed for how researchers, educators, and practitioners can maximise positive and minimise negative clinical context.

Unpacking the impact of chronic pain as measured by the impact stratification score

Background

In 2014, the National Institute of Health Pain Consortium’s research task force on research standards for chronic low back pain (CLBP) proposed a measure that could be used to stratify patients by the impact CLBP has on their lives, namely the Impact Stratification Score (ISS). This study examines the dimensionality of the ISS and support for its single total score, and evaluates its overall psychometric properties.

Methods

The sample included 1677 chiropractic patients being treated for CLBP and chronic neck pain, had an average age of 49, 71% female, and 90% White. Study participants completed the PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile survey that contains the 9 ISS items. The ISS was evaluated using item-total correlations, Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis (i.e., correlated factors and bifactor models), and item response theory (IRT). Reliability indices and item properties were evaluated from bifactor and IRT models, respectively.

Results

Item-total correlations were high (0.64–0.84) with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. Eigenvalues suggested the possibility of two factors corresponding to physical function and pain interference/intensity. Bifactor model results indicated that data were essentially unidimensional, primarily reflecting one general construct (i.e., impact) and that after accounting for ‘impact’ very little reliable variance remained in the two group factors. General impact scores were reliable (omegaH = .73). IRT models showed that items were strong indicators of impact and provided information across a wide range of the impact continuum and offer the possibility of a shorter 8-item ISS. Finally, it appears that different aspects of pain interference occur prior to losses in physical function.

Conclusions

This study presents evidence that the ISS is sufficiently unidimensional, covers a range of chronic pain impact and is a reliable measure. Insights are obtained into the sequence of chronic pain impacts on patients’ lives.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05834-4.

Assessing the Significance of Individual Change in 2 Samples of Patients in Treatment for Low Back Pain Using 5 Different Statistical Indicators

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the significance of individual change using 5 statistical indicators in 2 samples of patients treated for low back pain.

METHODS

This secondary analysis used observational and clinical trial data from 2 samples of patients with low back pain to compare 5 ways of estimating significant individual change on the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) administered at the following 2 time points: 3 months apart in an observational study of 1680 patients undergoing chiropractic care, and 6 weeks apart in a randomized trial of 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. The following 5 methods were compared: (1) standard deviation index; (2) standard error of measurement (SEM); (3) standard error of estimate (SEE); (4) standard error of prediction (SEP); and (5) the reliable change index (RCI). The ISS is the sum of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 v2.1 physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores and is scored to have a possible range of 8 (least impact) to 50 (greatest impact).

RESULTS

The amount of change on the ISS needed for significant individual change in both samples was 5 for the SEM and for the SEE and 7 for the SEP and RCI.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study provide some preliminary support for use of the SEP or the RCI to identify significant individual change and provide estimated thresholds of individual change that can be used for the ISS. The SEP and RCI estimates of significant change were consistent with retrospective ratings of change of at least moderately better in prior research. These 2 were less likely than other methods to classify people with low back pain as responders who have not actually gotten better (false positive). In contrast, the SEM and SEE were less likely to miss real change (false negative).

Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain

Spine pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting over 11% of the world's population. It is the single leading cause of activity limitation and ranks fourth in years lost to disability globally, representing a significant personal, social, and economic burden. For the vast majority of patients with back and neck pain, a specific pathology cannot be identified as the cause for their pain, which is then labeled as non-specific. In a growing proportion of these cases, pain persists beyond 3 months and is referred to as chronic primary back or neck pain. To decrease the global burden of spine pain, current data suggest that a conservative approach may be preferable. One of the conservative management options available is spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), the main intervention used by chiropractors and other manual therapists. The aim of this narrative review is to highlight the most relevant and up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness (as it compares to other interventions in more pragmatic settings) and efficacy (as it compares to inactive controls under highly controlled conditions) of SMT for the management of neck pain and low back pain. Additionally, a perspective on the current recommendations on SMT for spine pain and the needs for future research will be provided. In summary, SMT may be as effective as other recommended therapies for the management of non-specific and chronic primary spine pain, including standard medical care or physical therapy. Currently, SMT is recommended in combination with exercise for neck pain as part of a multimodal approach. It may also be recommended as a frontline intervention for low back pain. Despite some remaining discrepancies, current clinical practice guidelines almost universally recommend the use of SMT for spine pain. Due to the low quality of evidence, the efficacy of SMT compared with a placebo or no treatment remains uncertain. Therefore, future research is needed to clarify the specific effects of SMT to further validate this intervention. In addition, factors that predict these effects remain to be determined to target patients who are more likely to obtain positive outcomes from SMT.

Comparing the Recruitment of Research Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain Using Amazon Mechanical Turk With the Recruitment of Patients From Chiropractic Clinics: A Quasi-Experimental Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) with in-person recruitment and web-based surveys as a method to (1) recruit study participants and (2) obtain low-cost data quickly from chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain in the United States.

METHODS

In this 2-arm quasi-experimental study, we used in-person clinical sampling and web-based surveys from a separate study (RAND sample, n = 1677, data collected October 2016 to January 2017) compared with MTurk (n = 310, data collected November 2016) as a sampling and data collection tool. We gathered patient-reported health outcomes and other characteristics of adults with chronic low back pain receiving chiropractic care. Parametric and nonparametric tests were run. We assessed statistical and practical differences based on P values and effect sizes, respectively.

RESULTS

Compared with the RAND sample, the MTurk sample was statistically significantly younger (mean age 35.4 years, SD 9.7 vs 48.9, SD 14.8), made less money (24% vs 17% reported less than $30,000 annual income), and reported worst mental health than the RAND sample. Other differences were that the MTurk sample had more men (37% vs 29%), fewer White patients (87% vs 92%), more Hispanic patients (9% vs 5%), fewer people with a college degree (59% vs 68%), and patients were more likely to be working full time (62% vs 58%). The MTurk sample was more likely to have chronic low back pain (78% vs 66%) that differed in pain frequency and duration. The MTurk sample had less disability and better global health scores. In terms of efficiency, the surveys cost $2.50 per participant in incentives for the MTurk sample. Survey development took 2 weeks and data collection took 1 month.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that there may be differences between crowdsourcing and a clinic-based sample. These differences range from small to medium on demographics and self-reported health. The low incentive costs and rapid data collection of MTurk makes it an economically viable method of collecting data from chiropractic patients with low back pain. Further research is needed to explore the utility of MTurk for recruiting clinical samples, such as comparisons to nationally representative samples.

Income as a Predictor of Self-Efficacy for Managing Pain and for Coping With Symptoms Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain self-efficacy (PSE) and coping self-efficacy (CSE) for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and to assess whether lower income may be associated with less PSE and CSE in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study using survey data collected between June 2016 and February 2017 from n = 1364 patients with CLBP from chiropractic clinics in the United States to measure the relationship between income and both types of self-efficacy. We created 4 multivariate models predicting PSE and CSE scores. We used both a parsimonious set of covariates (age, sex) and a full set (age, sex, education, neck pain comorbidity, catastrophizing, and insurance). We also calculated effect sizes (Cohen's d) for unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE score by income.

RESULTS

Lower income was associated with lower PSE and CSE scores across all 4 models. In the full models, the highest-income group had an average of 1 point (1-10 scale) higher PSE score and CSE score compared to the lowest income group. Effect sizes for the unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE scores between the highest and lowest income groups were 0.94 and 0.84, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that people with lower income perceive themselves as less able to manage their pain, and that this relationship exists even after taking into account factors like health insurance and educational attainment. There is a need to further investigate how practitioners and policymakers can best support low-income patients with chronic pain.

Using Item Response Theory to Identify Responders to Treatment: Examples with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Physical Function Scale and Emotional Distress Composite

The reliable change index has been used to evaluate the significance of individual change in health-related quality of life. We estimate reliable change for two measures (physical function and emotional distress) in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 29-item health-related quality of life measure (PROMIS-29 v2.1). Using two waves of data collected 3 months apart in a longitudinal observational study of chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain patients receiving chiropractic care, and simulations, we compare estimates of reliable change from classical test theory fixed standard errors with item response theory standard errors from the graded response model. We find that unless true change in the PROMIS physical function and emotional distress scales is substantial, classical test theory estimates of significant individual change are much more optimistic than estimates of change based on item response theory.

How Does the Measurement of Disability in Low Back Pain Map Unto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health?: A Scoping Review of the Manual Medicine Literature

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to catalog items from instruments used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors in patients with low back pain treated with manual medicine (manipulation and mobilization) according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. This catalog will be used to inform the development of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based assessment schedule for low back pain patients treated with manual medicine. In this scoping review, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We identified instruments (questionnaires, clinical tests, single questions) used to measure functioning, disability, and contextual factors, extracted the relevant items, and then linked these items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We included 95 articles and identified 1510 meaningful concepts. All but 70 items were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Of the concepts linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, body functions accounted for 34.7%, body structures accounted for 0%, activities and participation accounted for 41%, environmental factors accounted for 3.6%, and personal factors accounted for 16%. Most items used to measure functioning and disability in low back pain patient treated with manual medicine focus on body functions, as well as activities and participation. The lack of measures that address environmental factors warrants further investigation.

Crosswalking the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity Scores to the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index

OBJECTIVE

To link scores from 2 condition-specific measures for chronic low back pain (CLBP), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), to Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores.

DESIGN

Ordinary least squares regression analyses of existing data to link the PROMIS scores with the ODI and RMDQ.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Samples of adults with CLBP (N=2279) obtained from the Center for Excellence in Research for Complementary and Integrative Health (CERC) Study (n=1677), the Assessment of Chiropractic Treatment for Low Back Pain and Smoking Cessation in Military Active Duty Personnel (ACT) (n=384), and the pain subsample of the PROMIS 1 Wave 2 Pain and Depression study (PROMIS 1 W2) (n=218).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity (CERC, ACT, and PROMIS 1 W2), ODI (CERC and PROMIS 1 W2), and RMDQ (ACT and PROMIS 1 W2).

RESULTS

In predicting PROMIS scores, the ODI model R² values ranged from 0.26-0.56 and the RMDQ model R² values ranged from 0.13-0.50. ODI and RMDQ models were the least precise in predicting the PROMIS pain intensity score (R² value range, 0.13-0.41) relative to the other PROMIS scores. Models with the 3 PROMIS scores as predictors yielded R² values ranging from 0.64-0.68 and 0.46-0.58 for the ODI and RMDQ, respectively. Models using combined data from 2 studies (ie, PROMIS 1 W2 and ACT, or PROMIS 1 W2 and CERC) tended to be more precise than models using only a single study sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Model results reported here can be used to translate PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores to and from the ODI and RMDQ. The empirical linkages can facilitate comparisons across CLBP interventions and broaden interpretation of study results.

Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability.

CONCLUSIONS

People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017068807 .

Visit Frequency and Outcomes for Patients Using Ongoing Chiropractic Care for Chronic Low-Back and Neck Pain: An Observational Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic spinal pain is prevalent and long-lasting. Although provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies, such as chiropractic care, have been recommended, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding long-term use of this care.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationships between visit frequency and outcomes for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic spinal pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational 3-month longitudinal study.

SETTING

Data collected from patients of 124 chiropractic clinics in 6 United States regions.

METHODS

We examined the impact of visit frequency and patient characteristics on pain (pain 0-10 numeric rating scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for low-back pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI] for neck pain, both 0-100 scale) using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a large national sample of chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or chronic neck pain (CNP). This study was approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03162952.

RESULTS

One thousand, three hundred, sixty-two patients with CLBP and 1,214 with CNP were included in a series of HLM models. Unconditional (time-only) models showed patients on average had mild pain and function, and significant, but slight improvements in these over the 3-month observation period: back and neck pain decreased by 0.40 and 0.44 points, respectively; function improved by 2.7 (ODI) and 3.0 points (NDI) (all P < 0.001). Adding chiropractic visit frequency to the models revealed that those with worse baseline pain and function used more visits, but only visits more than once per week for those with CLBP were associated with significantly better improvement. These relationships remained when other types of visits and baseline patient characteristics were included.

LIMITATIONS

This is an observational study based on self-reported data from a sample representative of chiropractic patients, but not all patients with CLBP or CNP.

CONCLUSIONS

This 3-month window on chiropractic patients with CLBP and/or CNP revealed that they were improving, although slowly; may have reached maximum therapeutic improvement; and are possibly successfully managing their chronic pain using a variety of chiropractic visit frequencies. These results may inform payers when building coverage policies for ongoing chiropractic care for patients with chronic pain.

A protocol for chronic pain outcome measurement enhancement by linking PROMIS-29 scale to legacy measures and improving chronic pain stratification

BACKGROUND

Substantial investment has gone into research on the efficacy and effectiveness of pharmaceutical and nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic pain. However, synthesizing this extensive literature is challenging because of differences in the outcome measures used in studies of similar or competing interventions. The absence of a common metric makes it difficult to replicate findings, pool data from multiple studies, resolve conflicting conclusions, or reach consensus when interpreting findings.

METHODS

This study has a seven-member Advisory Council of chronic pain experts. Preliminary analyses will be performed on data from several large existing datasets; intermediate analyses will be performed using primary data collected from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk); and cross-validation will use primary data collected from a nationally-representative, probability-based panel. Target sample size for both primary datasets is 1500. The three study aims are as follows: Aim 1 will develop and evaluate links between the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®-29) and legacy measures used for chronic pain such as the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We will assess the best method of score linking and create crosswalk tables. Aim 2 will evaluate and refine the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) based on 9 PROMIS-29 items and proposed by the NIH Research Task Force on chronic low back pain. We will evaluate the ISS in terms of other indicators of condition severity and patient prognosis and outcomes and identify cut-points to stratify chronic pain patients into subgroups. Aim 3 will evaluate the strengths and limitations of MTurk as a data collection platform for estimating chronic pain by comparing its data to other data sources.

DISCUSSION

The accomplishment of Aims 1 and 2 will allow direct comparison of results across past and future studies of chronic pain. These comparisons will help us to understand different results from seemingly similar studies, and to determine the relative effectiveness of all pharmaceutical and nonpharmacologic interventions for chronic pain across different trials. Aim 3 findings will provide valuable information to researchers about the pros and cons of using the MTurk platform for research-based data collection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04426812 ; June 10, 2020.

Relation Between Neck Pain and Modic Changes in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Background

Modic changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represent lesions in the bone marrow of the vertebral body that may be associated with pain. This study investigated the relationship between neck pain and cervical Modic changes, and risk factors for neck pain (NP).

Material/Methods

This study included 168 patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy between February 2013 and April 2017. Basic patient information about demographic and lifestyle variables was obtained from medical records. Radiographic images provided cervical alignment (C2–C7 Cobb), T1 slope and C7 slope. All patients underwent MRI to evaluate the presence of Modic changes. Univariate analyses identified the variables as potential factors. Variables with a p<0.10 were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis models. P-values <0.05 were statistically significant.

Results

Only 93 patients (55.4%) had NP. Modic changes in patients with NP were significantly higher than those without Modic changes (p=0.002). Eighty-five patients had Modic changes types I, II, III; 41 (48.2%), 29 (34.1%), 15 (17.6%), respectively. The distribution of these Modic changes varied with NP (p<0.001). Type I Modic changes were seen with NP more frequently than other types of Modic changes. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.16) and Modic changes (OR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.09–1.46) were significant independent factors for NP.

Conclusions

In cervical spondylosis, age and Modic changes were associated with NP. Modic change type I is more likely to occur with NP.

Experiences With Chiropractic Care for Patients With Low Back or Neck Pain

Background

Musculoskeletal disorders are the second leading cause of disability worldwide.

Objective

Examine experiences of chiropractic patients in the United States with chronic low back or neck pain.

Method

Observational study of 1853 chronic low back pain and neck pain patients (74% female) who completed an online questionnaire at the 3-month follow-up that included Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items assessing their experiences with care.

Results

We found similar reports of communication for the chiropractic sample and patients in the 2016 CAHPS National Database, but 85% in the database versus 79% in the chiropractic sample gave the most positive response to the time spent with provider item. More patients in the CAHPS database rated their provider at the top of the scale (8 percentage points). More chiropractic patients reported always getting answers to questions the same day (16 percentage points) and always being seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time (29 percentage points).

Conclusions

The positive experiences of patients with chronic back and neck pain are supportive of their use of chiropractic care.

Predictors of visit frequency for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic low back and chronic neck pain; analysis of observational data

BACKGROUND

Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care.

METHODS

Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory-in this case, Anderson's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.

RESULTS

Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Coping and Management Techniques Used by Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Receiving Treatment From Chiropractors

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe coping strategies (eg, mechanisms, including self-treatment) that a person uses to reduce pain and its impact on functioning as reported by patients with chronic low back pain who were seen by doctors of chiropractic and how these coping strategies vary by patient characteristics.

METHODS

Data were collected from a national sample of US chiropractic patients recruited from chiropractic practices in 6 states from major geographical regions of the United States using a multistage stratified sampling strategy. Reports of coping behaviors used to manage pain during the past 6 months were used to create counts across 6 domains: cognitive, self-care, environmental, medical care, social activities, and work. Exploratory analyses examined counts in domains and frequencies of individual items by levels of patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 1677 respondents with chronic low back pain reported using an average of 9 coping behaviors in the prior 6 months. Use of more types of behaviors were reported among those with more severe back pain, who rated their health as fair or poor and who had daily occurrences of pain. Exercise was more frequent among the healthy and those with less pain. Female respondents tended to report using more coping behaviors than men, and Hispanics more than non-Hispanics.

CONCLUSION

Persons with chronic back pain were proactive in their coping strategies and frequently used self-care coping strategies like those provided by chiropractors in patient education. In alignment with patients' beliefs that their condition was chronic and lifelong, many patients attempted a wide range of coping strategies to relieve their pain.

The impact of patient preferences and costs on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Although the delivery of appropriate healthcare is an important goal, the definition of what constitutes appropriate care is not always agreed upon. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method is one of the most well-known and used approaches to define care appropriateness from the clinical perspective-i.e., that the expected effectiveness of a treatment exceeds its expected risks. However, patient preferences (the patient perspective) and costs (the healthcare system perspective) are also important determinants of appropriateness and should be considered.

METHODS

We examined the impact of including information on patient preferences and cost on expert panel ratings of clinical appropriateness for spinal mobilization and manipulation for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

RESULTS

The majority of panelists thought patient preferences were important to consider in determining appropriateness and that their inclusion could change ratings, and half thought the same about cost. However, few actually changed their appropriateness ratings based on the information presented on patient preferences regarding the use of these therapies and their costs. This could be because the panel received information on average patient preferences for spinal mobilization and manipulation whereas some panelists commented that appropriateness should be determined based on the preferences of individual patients. Also, because these therapies are not expensive, their ratings may not be cost sensitive. The panelists also generally agreed that preferences and costs would only impact their ratings if the therapies were considered clinically appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the information presented on patient preferences and costs for spinal mobilization and manipulation had little impact on the rated appropriateness of these therapies for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. Although it was generally agreed that patient preferences and costs were important to the appropriateness of M/M for CLBP and CNP, it seems that what would be most important were the preferences of the individual patient, not patients in general, and large cost differentials.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Chronic Spinal Pain Patients with Different Hopes (Treatment Goals) for Ongoing Chiropractic Care

Objectives: The treatment goals of patients successfully using ongoing provider-based care for chronic spinal pain can help inform health policy related to this care. Design: Multinomial logistical hierarchical linear models were used to examine the characteristics of patients with different treatment goals for their ongoing care. Settings/Location: Observational data from a large national sample of patients from 125 chiropractic clinics clustered in 6 U.S. regions. Subjects: Patients with nonwork-injury-related nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). Interventions: All were receiving ongoing chiropractic care. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes were patient endorsement of one of four goals for their treatment. Explanatory variables included pain characteristics, pain beliefs, goals for mobility/flexibility, demographics, and other psychological variables. Results: Across our sample of 1614 patients (885 with CLBP and 729 with CNP) just under one-third endorsed a treatment goal of having their pain go away permanently (cure). The rest had goals of preventing their pain from coming back (22% CLBP, 16% CNP); preventing their pain from getting worse (14% CLBP, 12% CNP); or temporarily relieving their pain (31% CLBP, 41% CNP). In univariate analysis across these goals, patients differed significantly on almost all variables. In the multinomial logistic models, a goal of cure was associated with shorter pain duration and more belief in a medical cure; a goal of preventing pain from coming back was associated with lower pain levels; and those with goals of preventing their pain from getting worse or temporarily relieving pain were similar, including in having their pain longer. Conclusions: Although much of health policy follows a curative model, the majority of these CLBP and CNP patients have goals of pain management (using ongoing care) rather than "cure" (care with a specific end) for their chiropractic care. This information could be useful in crafting policy for patients facing provider-based nonpharmacologic care for chronic pain.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 5: Using Patient Records: Selection, Protection, and Abstraction

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper is to describe the 4-step process (consent, selection, protection, and abstraction) of acquiring a large sample of chiropractic patient records from multiple practices and subsequent data abstraction.

METHODS

From April 2017 to December 2017, RAND acquired patient records from 99 chiropractic practices across the United States. The records included patients enrolled in a survey e-study (prospective sample) and a random sample of all clinic patients (retrospective sample) with chronic back or neck pain. Clinic staff were trained to collect the sample, scan, and transfer the records. We designed an online data collection tool for abstraction. Protocols were instituted to protect patient confidentiality. Doctors of chiropractic were selected and trained as abstractors, and a system was established to monitor data collection.

RESULTS

In compliance with data protection protocols, 3603 patient records were scanned, including 1475 in the prospective sample and 2128 in the random sample. A total of 1716 patients (prospective sample) consented to having their records scanned, but only 1475 could be retrieved. Of records scanned, 19% were unusable owing to illegibility, no care during the period of interest, or poor scanning. The abstractor interrater reliability for appropriateness of care decisions was fair to moderate (κ .38-.48).

CONCLUSION

The acquisition, handling, and abstraction of a large sample of chiropractic records was a complex task with challenges that necessitated adapting planned approaches. Of the records abstracted, many revealed incomplete provider documentation regarding the details of and rationale for care. Better documentation and more standardized record keeping would facilitate future research using patient records.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 4: Putting Practice Back Into Evidence-based Practice by Recruiting Clinics and Patients

OBJECTIVES

This paper focuses on the methods of a single study, incorporating data from chiropractic clinics into an evidenced-based investigation of the appropriateness of manipulation for chronic back pain.

METHODS

A cluster sample of clinics (125) from 6 sites across the United States was chosen for this observation study. Patients with chronic low-back and neck pain were recruited using iPads, completed a series of online questionnaires, and gave permission for their patient records to be scanned. Patient records for a random sample were also obtained. The RAND staff and clinic personnel collected record data.

RESULTS

We obtained survey data from 2024 patients with chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, or both. We obtained patient record data from 114 of 125 clinics. These included the records of 1475 of the individuals who had completed surveys (prospective sample), and a random sample of 2128 patients. Across 114 clinics, 22% of clinics had patient records that were fully electronic, 32% had paper files, and 46% used a combination. Of the 114 clinics, about 47% scanned the records themselves with training from RAND. We obtained a total of 3603 scanned records. The patient survey data were collected from June 2016 to February 2017, the provider surveys from June 2016 to March 2017, and the chart pull from April 2017 to December 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinics can be successfully recruited for practice-based studies, and patients can be recruited using iPads. Obtaining patient records presents considerable challenges, and clinics varied in whether they had electronic files, nonelectronic records, or a mixture. Clinic staff can be trained to select and scan samples of charts to comply with randomization and data protection protocols in transferring records for research purposes.

Patient Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Chronic Low Back Pain and Chronic Neck Pain

Many recommended nonpharmacologic therapies for patients with chronic spinal pain require visits to providers such as acupuncturists and chiropractors. Little information is available to inform third-party payers' coverage policies regarding ongoing use of these therapies. This study offers contingent valuation-based estimates of patient willingness to pay (WTP) for pain reductions from a large (n = 1,583) sample of patients using ongoing chiropractic care to manage their chronic low back and neck pain. Average WTP estimates were $45.98 (45.8) per month per 1-point reduction in current pain for chronic low back pain and $37.32 (38.0) for chronic neck pain. These estimates met a variety of validity checks including that individuals' values define a downward-sloping demand curve for these services. Comparing these WTP estimates with patients' actual use of chiropractic care over the next 3 months indicates that these patients are likely "buying" perceived pain reductions from what they believe their pain would have been if they didn't see their chiropractor-that is, they value maintenance of their current mild pain levels. These results provide some evidence for copay levels and their relationship to patient demand, but call into question ongoing coverage policies that require the documentation of continued improvement or of experienced clinical deterioration with treatment withdrawal. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides estimates of reported WTP for pain reduction from a large sample of patients using chiropractic care to manage their chronic spinal pain and compares these estimates to what these patients do for care over the next 3 months, to inform coverage policies for ongoing care.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 2: What Every Researcher and Practitioner Should Know About the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Practice-based Research in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes a process for ensuring and documenting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance in clinical practice-based research.

METHODS

The Center of Excellence for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine was funded by National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health to develop the methods for researching the appropriateness of care in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine. We recruited 125 participating chiropractic clinics for enrolling patients and gathering their data via the online surveys. Chiropractic clinics completed the following: (1) obtained the files of patients who provided prior consent (the prospective sample), (2) obtained the files of the patients selected randomly using specified randomization procedures (the retrospective sample), and (3) transferred all patient data to the RAND Corporation via an encrypted file.

RESULTS

Most of the doctors of chiropractic from clinical practices had no concerns about obtaining and transferring the files of patients who provided informed consent. However, some doctors were uneasy about allowing the researchers to access the randomly selected files of patients who had not provided prior authorization. This led us to develop a set of forms to provide clinics about HIPAA compliance.

CONCLUSION

For this study, we provided clinics with information about the rules under HIPAA, demonstrated how the study complied with those rules, explained the logic behind the necessity for collecting files from both the prospective and retrospective samples, and, if requested, provided clinics with a confidentiality agreement signed by the study principal investigator and an organizational contracts representative. The process we developed may assist other complementary and integrative health researchers and practitioners in future studies.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions: Part I

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to report on the Center of Excellence for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine at RAND Corporation. The overall project examined the appropriateness of chiropractic spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic cervical pain using the RAND and University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, including patient preferences and costs, to acknowledge the importance of patient-centered care in clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This article is a narrative summary of the overall project and its inter-related components (ie, 4 Research Project Grants and 2 centers), including the Data Collection Core, whose activities and learning will be the subject of a following series of methods articles.

RESULTS

The project team faced many challenges in accomplishing data collection goals. The processes we developed to overcome barriers may be of use to other researchers and for practitioners who may want to participate in such studies in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine.

CONCLUSION

For this large, complex, successful project, we gathered online survey data, collected charts, and abstracted chart data from thousands of chiropractic patients. The present article delineates the challenges and lessons that were learned during this project so that others may gain from the authors' experience. This information may be of use to future research that collects data from independent practitioners and their patients because it provides what is needed to be successful in such studies and may encourage participation.