The role of alternative medical providers for the outpatient treatment of insured patients with back pain

Methodological considerations in the assessment of direct and indirect costs of back pain: A systematic scoping review

Background

Back pain is a common and costly health problem worldwide. There is yet a lack of consistent methodologies to estimate the economic burden of back pain to society.

Objective

To systematically evaluate the methodologies used in the published cost of illness (COI) literature for estimating the direct and indirect costs attributed to back pain, and to present a summary of the estimated cost burden.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched to identify COI studies of back pain published in English up to February 2021. A total of 1,588 abstracts were screened, and 55 full-text studies were subsequently reviewed. After applying the inclusion criteria, 45 studies pertaining to the direct and indirect costs of back pain were analysed.

Results

The studies reported data on 15 industrialised countries. The national cost estimates of back pain in 2015 USD ranged from $259 million ($29.1 per capita) in Sweden to $71.6 billion ($868.4 per capita) in Germany. There was high heterogeneity among the studies in terms of the methodologies used for analysis and the resulting costs reported. Most of the studies assessed costs from a societal perspective (n = 29). The magnitude and accuracy of the reported costs were influenced by the case definition of back pain, the source of data used, the cost components included and the analysis method. Among the studies that provided both direct and indirect cost estimates (n = 15), indirect costs resulting from lost or reduced work productivity far outweighed the direct costs.

Conclusion

Back pain imposes substantial economic burden on society. This review demonstrated that existing published COI studies of back pain used heterogeneous approaches reflecting a lack of consensus on methodology. A standardised methodological approach is required to increase credibility of the findings of COI studies and improve comparison of estimates across studies.

A prospective randomized controlled study of auricular point acupressure to manage chronic low back pain in older adults: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major health problem and the most common pain condition among those aged 60 years or older in the US. Despite the development of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions, cLBP outcomes have not improved and disability rates continue to rise. This study aims to test auricular point acupressure (APA) as a non-invasive, nonpharmacological self-management strategy to manage cLBP and to address current shortcomings of cLBP treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

For this prospective randomized controlled study, participants will be randomly assigned to three groups: (1) APA group (active points related to cLBP), (2) Comparison group-1 (non-active points, unrelated to cLBP), and (3) Comparison group-2 (enhanced educational control, an educational booklet on cLBP will be given and the treatment used by participants for their cLBP will be recorded). The ecological momentary assessment smartphone app will be used to collect real-time cLBP outcomes and adherence to APA practice. Treatment and nonspecific psychological placebo effects will be measured via questionnaires for all participants. This proposed trial will evaluate the APA sustained effects for cLBP at 12-month follow-up. Monthly telephone follow-up will be used to collect study outcomes. Blood will be collected during study visits at baseline, post APA treatment, and follow-up study visits at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post completion of treatment for a total of seven assessments. Appointments will start between 9 and 11 am to control for circadian variation in cytokine levels.

DISCUSSION

This study is expected to provide vital information on the efficacy, sustainability, and underlying mechanism of APA on cLBP necessary for APA to gain acceptance from both healthcare providers and patients, which would provide a strong impetus for including APA as part of cLBP management in clinical and home settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03589703. Registered on 22 May 2018.

Auricular Point Acupressure to Manage Aromatase Inhibitor-Induced Arthralgia in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of auricular point acupressure to manage aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia.
.

DESIGN

Wait list control design.
.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics and oncology center.
.

SAMPLE

20 women with aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia.
.

METHODS

After baseline data were collected, participants waited one month before they received acupressure once per week for four weeks at a convenient time. The baseline data served as the control comparison. Self-reported measures and blood samples were obtained at baseline, at preintervention, weekly during the intervention, and at post-intervention.
.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

The primary outcomes included pain intensity, pain interference, stiffness, and physical function. Inflammatory cytokines and chemokines were tested.
.

FINDINGS

After the four-week intervention, participants reported decreases in worst pain and pain interference, and improvements in physical function, cancer-related symptom severity, and interference. The proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines displayed a trend of a mean percentage reduction. The anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-13 increased from pre- to postintervention.
.

CONCLUSIONS

Auricular point acupressure is feasible and may be effective in managing arthralgia in breast cancer survivors.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses can administer acupressure in clinical settings, which could enhance the management of aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia and contribute to a shift from traditional disease-based biomedical models to a broader, integrative, medical paradigm for managing aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia.

The chiropractic profession: a scoping review of utilization rates, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and care provided

Background

Previous research has investigated utilization rates, who sees chiropractors, for what reasons, and the type of care that chiropractors provide. However, these studies have not been comprehensively synthesized. We aimed to give a global overview by summarizing the current literature on the utilization of chiropractic services, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and assessment and treatment provided.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature using keywords and subject headings (MeSH or ChiroSH terms) from database inception to January 2016. Eligible studies: 1) were published in English or French; 2) were case series, descriptive, cross-sectional, or cohort studies; 3) described patients receiving chiropractic services; and 4) reported on the following theme(s): utilization rates of chiropractic services; reasons for attending chiropractic care; profiles of chiropractic patients; or, types of chiropractic services provided. Paired reviewers independently screened all citations and data were extracted from eligible studies. We provided descriptive numerical analysis, e.g. identifying the median rate and interquartile range (e.g., chiropractic utilization rate) stratified by study population or condition.

Results

The literature search retrieved 14,149 articles; 328 studies (reported in 337 articles) were relevant and reported on chiropractic utilization (245 studies), reason for attending chiropractic care (85 studies), patient demographics (130 studies), and assessment and treatment provided (34 studies). Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015. Most patients consulting chiropractors were female (57.0%, IQR: 53.2%-60.0%) with a median age of 43.4 years (IQR: 39.6-48.0), and were employed (median: 77.3%, IQR: 70.3%-85.0%). The most common reported reasons for people attending chiropractic care were (median) low back pain (49.7%, IQR: 43.0%-60.2%), neck pain (22.5%, IQR: 16.3%-24.5%), and extremity problems (10.0%, IQR: 4.3%-22.0%). The most common treatment provided by chiropractors included (median) spinal manipulation (79.3%, IQR: 55.4%-91.3%), soft-tissue therapy (35.1%, IQR: 16.5%-52.0%), and formal patient education (31.3%, IQR: 22.6%-65.0%).

Conclusions

This comprehensive overview on the world-wide state of the chiropractic profession documented trends in the literature over the last four decades. The findings support the diverse nature of chiropractic practice, although common trends emerged.

Shoe Orthotics for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of shoe orthotics with and without chiropractic treatment for chronic low back pain compared with no treatment.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Integrative medicine teaching clinic at a university.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult subjects (N=225) with symptomatic low back pain of ≥3 months were recruited from a volunteer sample.

INTERVENTIONS

Subjects were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment groups (shoe orthotic, plus, and waitlist groups). The shoe orthotic group received custom-made shoe orthotics. The plus group received custom-made orthotics plus chiropractic manipulation, hot or cold packs, and manual soft tissue massage. The waitlist group received no care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were change in perceived back pain (numerical pain rating scale) and functional health status (Oswestry Disability Index) after 6 weeks of study participation. Outcomes were also assessed after 12 weeks and then after an additional 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks, all 3 groups demonstrated significant within-group improvement in average back pain, but only the shoe orthotic and plus groups had significant within-group improvement in function. When compared with the waitlist group, the shoe orthotic group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in pain (P<.0001) and function (P=.0068). The addition of chiropractic to orthotics treatment demonstrated significantly greater improvements in function (P=.0278) when compared with orthotics alone, but no significant difference in pain (P=.3431). Group differences at 12 weeks and later were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Six weeks of prescription shoe orthotics significantly improved back pain and dysfunction compared with no treatment. The addition of chiropractic care led to higher improvements in function.

Changes in Sleep With Auricular Point Acupressure for Chronic Low Back Pain

The purpose of this study was to report sleep quality from 4 weeks of auricular point acupressure that was designed for chronic low back pain and determine the relationship between pain intensity and sleep quality. Participants were randomized into the APA group (n = 30) or the sham-APA group (n = 31). At baseline assessment, 87% of the participants reported poor sleep quality. Participants who received APA had decreased daytime disturbance and improved global Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores at end of intervention (EOI) and 1-month follow up compared to participants in the sham-APA group. For the APA group, both the sleep duration and wake after sleep onset decreased gradually during the 4-week APA (0.56% and 0.23% daily change, respectively).

Analysis of provider specialties in the treatment of patients with clinically diagnosed back and joint problems

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Although several studies have compared patient outcomes by provider specialty in the treatment of back and joint pain, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of improving patient outcomes across specialties. This study uses a large-scale, nationally representative database to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of being treated by specific provider specialists for back and joint pain in the United States.

METHOD

The 2002-2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys were used to examine patients diagnosed with back and/or joint problems seeking treatment from doctors (internal medicine, family/general, osteopathic medicine, orthopaedics, rheumatology, neurology) or other providers (chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, massage therapist). A total of 16,546 respondents aged 18 to 85 and clinically diagnosed with back/joint pain were examined. Self-reported measures of physical and mental health and general quality of life (measured by the EuroQol-5D) were compared with average total costs of treatment across medical providers.

RESULTS

Total annual treatment costs per person ranged from $397 for family/general doctors to $1205 for rheumatologists. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that osteopathic, family/general, internal medicine doctors and chiropractors and massage therapists were more cost-effective than other specialties in improving physical function to back pain patients. For mental health measures, family/general and orthopaedic doctors and physical therapists were more cost-effective compared with other specialties. Similar to results on physical function, family/general, osteopathic and internal medicine doctors dominated other specialties. However, only massage therapy was cost-effective among non-doctor providers in improving quality of life measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seeking care for back and joint-related health problems face a wide range of treatments, costs and outcomes depending on which specialist provider they see. This study provides important insight on the relationship between health care costs and patients' perceived physical and mental health status from receiving treatment for diagnosed back/joint problems.

Out-Of-Pocket Expenditures on Complementary Health Approaches Associated With Painful Health Conditions in a Nationally Representative Adult Sample

National surveys suggest that millions of adults in the United States use complementary health approaches such as acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation, and herbal medicines to manage painful conditions such as arthritis, back pain, and fibromyalgia. Yet, national and per person out-of-pocket (OOP) costs attributable to this condition-specific use are unknown. In the 2007 National Health Interview Survey, the use of complementary health approaches, the reasons for this use, and the associated OOP costs were captured in a nationally representative sample of 5,467 adults. Ordinary least square regression models that controlled for comorbid conditions were used to estimate aggregate and per person OOP costs associated with 14 painful health conditions. Individuals using complementary approaches spent a total of $14.9 billion (standard error [SE] = $.9 billion) on these approaches to manage these painful conditions. Total OOP expenditures by those using complementary approaches for their back pain ($8.7 billion, SE = $.8 billion) far outstripped OOP expenditures for any other condition; the majority of these costs ($4.7 billion, SE = $.4 billion) were for visits to complementary providers. Annual condition-specific per person OOP costs varied from a low of $568 (SE = $144) for regular headaches to a high of $895 (SE = $163) for fibromyalgia.

PERSPECTIVE

Adults in the United States spent $14.9 billion on complementary health approaches (eg, acupuncture, chiropractic manipulation, and herbal medicines) to manage painful conditions including back pain ($8.7 billion). This back pain estimate is almost one-third of the total conventional health care expenditure for back pain ($30.4 billion) and two-thirds higher than conventional OOP expenditures ($5.1 billion).

Cost analysis related to dose-response of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis is to report the incremental costs and benefits of different doses of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

We randomized 400 patients with chronic LBP to receive a dose of 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of SMT. Participants were scheduled for 18 visits for 6 weeks and received SMT or light massage control from a doctor of chiropractic. Societal costs in the year after study enrollment were estimated using patient reports of health care use and lost productivity. The main health outcomes were the number of pain-free days and disability-free days. Multiple regression was performed on outcomes and log-transformed cost data.

RESULTS

Lost productivity accounts for most societal costs of chronic LBP. Cost of treatment and lost productivity ranged from $3398 for 12 SMT sessions to $3815 for 0 SMT sessions with no statistically significant differences between groups. Baseline patient characteristics related to increase in costs were greater age (P = .03), greater disability (P = .01), lower quality-adjusted life year scores (P = .01), and higher costs in the period preceding enrollment (P < .01). Pain-free and disability-free days were greater for all SMT doses compared with control, but only SMT 12 yielded a statistically significant benefit of 22.9 pain-free days (P = .03) and 19.8 disability-free days (P = .04). No statistically significant group differences in quality-adjusted life years were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

A dose of 12 SMT sessions yielded a modest benefit in pain-free and disability-free days. Care of chronic LBP with SMT did not increase the costs of treatment plus lost productivity.

Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how motivational enhancement physiotherapy improves physical functioning in pain patients

PURPOSE

Pain is a complex phenomenon not easily discerned from psychological, social, and environmental characteristics and is an oft cited barrier to return to work for people experiencing low back pain (LBP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate a path-analytic mediation model to examine how motivational enhancement physiotherapy, which incorporates tenets of motivational interviewing, improves physical functioning of patients with chronic LBP.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients with chronic LBP were recruited from the outpatient physiotherapy department of a government hospital in Hong Kong.

RESULTS

The re-specified path-analytic model fit the data very well, χ (2)(3, N = 76) = 3.86, p = .57; comparative fit index = 1.00; and the root mean square error of approximation = 0.00. Specifically, results indicated that (a) using motivational interviewing techniques in physiotherapy was associated with increased working alliance with patients, (b) working alliance increased patients' outcome expectancy and (c) greater outcome expectancy resulted in a reduction of subjective pain intensity and improvement in physical functioning. Change in pain intensity also directly influenced improvement in physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of motivational enhancement therapy on physical functioning can be explained by social-cognitive factors such as motivation, outcome expectancy, and working alliance. The use of motivational interviewing techniques to increase outcome expectancy of patients and improve working alliance could further strengthen the impact of physiotherapy on rehabilitation outcomes of patients with chronic LBP.

Auricular point acupressure to manage chronic low back pain in older adults: a randomized controlled pilot study

This prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) pilot study was designed to (1) assess the feasibility and tolerability of an easily administered, auricular point acupressure (APA) intervention and (2) provide an initial assessment of effect size as compared to a sham treatment. Thirty-seven subjects were randomized to receive either the real or sham APA treatment. All participants were treated once a week for 4 weeks. Self-report measures were obtained at baseline, weekly during treatment, at end-of-intervention (EOI), and at a 1-month follow-up. A dropout rate of 26% in the real APA group and 50% in the sham group was observed. The reduction in worst pain from baseline to EOI was 41% for the real and 5% for the sham group with a Cohen's effect size of 1.22 (P < 0.00). Disability scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) decreased in the real group by 29% and were unchanged in the sham group (+3%) (P < 0.00). Given the high dropout rate, results must be interpreted with caution; nevertheless, our results suggest that APA may provide an inexpensive and effective complementary approach for the management of back pain in older adults, and further study is warranted.

Naturopathic practice at north american academic institutions: description of 300,483 visits and comparison to conventional primary care

This study collected patient visit data to explore similarities and differences between conventional and naturopathic primary care (PC). Administrative data from practice management software systems from the main teaching clinics of four of the eight accredited North American naturopathic academic institutions were abstracted into an integrated database containing five years (2006-2010) of visit, patient, laboratory, and prescribing data. Descriptive analyses of healthcare services were compared to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Over the five-year period, 300,483 patient visits to naturopathic doctors occurred at clinics, excluding visits at clinics operated by the schools in community settings. Patients were 69% female; mean age was 39 (SE 0.09). Older adults (>65) comprised 9% of the population and children (<16) comprised 8%. Comparing academic naturopathic clinics to national conventional PC (NAMCS), we found more patients paid out of pocket at naturopathic clinics (50 vs. 4%) and naturopathic clinics more frequently offered discounted care (26 vs. 0.3%). There was a 44% overlap in the most frequent 25 diagnoses for PC at conventional community clinics. Overall, these data suggest substantial similarities in care offered by academic naturopathic clinics, at which most Naturopathic Doctor (ND) students are trained, and by conventional PC practices.

Longitudinal urban-rural discrepancies in the US orthopaedic surgeon workforce

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the supply of orthopaedic surgeons can meet the needs of a growing and aging population. This may be especially concerning in rural areas where there are known disparities in overall healthcare provision.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore (1) determined urban-rural trends in the US physician and orthopaedic workforce (including the age of that workforce) from 1995 to 2010; (2) geographically mapped the physician and orthopaedic distribution; and (3) examined urban-rural changes in select nonorthopaedic musculoskeletal provider (chiropractor and podiatrist) workforces from 2000 to 2010.

METHODS

County-level provider data from 1995 to 2010 were obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. This was aggregated to Hospital Referral Regions and ranked by Rural-Urban Continuum Code. Hospital Referral Region-level data were mapped to identify geographic trends. Total physician and orthopaedic surgeon workforce data were averaged across the most urban and rural regions for the study period.

RESULTS

There were urban-rural discrepancies in the physician and orthopaedic workforce from 1995 to 2010 with fewer orthopaedic surgeons in rural areas than urban areas (6.52 versus 8.73 per 100,000 in 2010; p=0.001). Furthermore, orthopaedic surgeons in rural areas were older than their urban counterparts, with a workforce age ratio (age>55: age<55 years) of 0.92 versus 0.65 in 2010 (p=0.024). From 2000 to 2010, the rural chiropractor and podiatrist workforces showed tremendous growth of 229.6% and 279.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant urban-rural orthopaedic surgeon workforce discrepancies from 1995 to 2010. Concurrent growth in chiropractor and podiatrist numbers shows significant trends in the musculoskeletal provider workforce that warrant continuing observation and analysis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, economic and decision analyses. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A randomized clinical trial of auricular point acupressure for chronic low back pain: a feasibility study

Objectives. This prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was designed to investigate the feasibility and effects of a 4-week auricular point acupressure (APA) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods. Participants were randomized to either true APA (true acupoints with taped seeds on the designated ear points for CLBP) or sham APA (sham acupoints with taped seeds but on different locations than those designated for CLBP). The duration of treatment was four weeks. Participants were assessed before treatment, weekly during treatment, and 1 month following treatment. Results. Participants in the true APA group who completed the 4-week APA treatment had a 70% reduction in worst pain intensity, a 75% reduction in overall pain intensity, and a 42% improvement in disability due to back pain from baseline assessment. The reductions of worst pain and overall pain intensity in the true APA group were statistically greater than participants in the sham group (P < 0.01) at the completion of a 4-week APA and 1 month followup. Discussion. The preliminary findings of this feasibility study showed a reduction in pain intensity and improvement in physical function suggesting that APA may be a promising treatment for patients with CLBP.

Collaborative Care for Older Adults with low back pain by family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic (COCOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Low back pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition that affects the health and quality of life of older adults. Older people often consult primary care physicians about back pain, with many also receiving concurrent care from complementary and alternative medicine providers, most commonly doctors of chiropractic. However, a collaborative model of treatment coordination between these two provider groups has yet to be tested. The primary aim of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults Clinical Trial is to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a patient-centered, collaborative care model with family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic for the treatment of low back pain in older adults.

Methods/design

This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial will enroll 120 participants, age 65 years or older with subacute or chronic low back pain lasting at least one month, from a community-based sample in the Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois, USA. Eligible participants are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 12 weeks of medical care, concurrent medical and chiropractic care, or collaborative medical and chiropractic care. Primary outcomes are self-rated back pain and disability. Secondary outcomes include general and functional health status, symptom bothersomeness, expectations for treatment effectiveness and improvement, fear avoidance behaviors, depression, anxiety, satisfaction, medication use and health care utilization. Treatment safety and adverse events also are monitored. Participant-rated outcome measures are collected via self-reported questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews at baseline, and at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks post-randomization. Provider-rated expectations for treatment effectiveness and participant improvement also are evaluated. Process outcomes are assessed through qualitative interviews with study participants and research clinicians, chart audits of progress notes and content analysis of clinical trial notes.

Discussion

This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial uses a mixed method approach to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, feasibility, and participant and provider perceptions of collaborative care between medical doctors and doctors of chiropractic in the treatment of older adults with low back pain.

Trial registration

This trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 04 March 2011 with the ID number of NCT01312233.

Auricular point acupressure for chronic low back pain: a feasibility study for 1-week treatment

Objectives. The objective of this one-group, repeated-measures design was to explore the acceptance of auricular point acupressure (APA) to reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) and estimate minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) for pain intensity change. Methods. Subjects received 7-day APA treatment. After appropriate acupoints were identified, vaccaria seeds were carefully taped onto each selected auricular point for 7-day. The Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI) was used to collect outcome data. Results. A total of 74 subjects participated in the study. Ten subjects dropped out and the retention rate was 87%. Subjects reported a 46% reduction in BPI worst pain, and over 50% reduction in BPI average pain, overall pain severity and pain interference by the end of study, and 62.5% subjects also reported less pain medication use. The MCIDs for the subscale of BPI ranged from .70 to 1.86 points. The percentage improvement of MCIDs from baseline was between 14.5-24.9%. Discussion. APA appears to be highly acceptable to patients with CLBP. A sham group is needed in order to differentiate the true effects of APA from the possible psychological effects of more frequent visits by the auricular therapist and patients' expectation of the APA treatment.

The role of exercise and alternative treatments for low back pain

The determination of whether a patient should pursue an active or passive treatment program is often made by medical practitioners. Knowledge about all forms of treatment, including complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments, is essential in the treatment of low back pain. Medical practitioner-directed active treatments that have been shown to be effective for the treatment of low back pain include physical therapy-directed exercise programs such as core stabilization and mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT). Based on the current literature, it appears that yoga is the most effective nonphysician-directed active treatment approach to nonspecific low back pain when comparing other CAM treatments. Acupuncture is a medical practitioner-directed passive treatment that has been shown to be a good adjunct treatment. More randomized controlled studies are needed to support both CAM treatments and exercise in the treatment of low back pain.

Who seeks primary care for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) with physicians prescribing homeopathic and other complementary medicine? Results from the EPI3-LASER survey in France

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of information describing patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) using complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and almost none distinguishing homeopathy from other CAMs. The objective of this study was to describe and compare patients with MSDs who consulted primary care physicians, either certified homeopaths (Ho) or regular prescribers of CAMs in a mixed practice (Mx), to those consulting physicians who strictly practice conventional medicine (CM), with regard to the severity of their MSD expressed as chronicity, co-morbidity and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

The EPI3-LASER study was a nationwide observational survey of a representative sample of general practitioners and their patients in France. The sampling strategy ensured a sufficient number of GPs in each of the three groups to allow comparison of their patients. Patients completed a questionnaire on socio-demographics, lifestyle and QOL using the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Chronicity of MSDs was defined as more than twelve weeks duration of the current episode. Diagnoses and co-morbidities were recorded by the physician.

RESULTS

A total of 825 GPs included 1,692 MSD patients (predominantly back pain and osteoarthritis) were included, 21.6% in the CM group, 32.4% Ho and 45.9% Mx. Patients in the Ho group had more often a chronic MSD (62.1%) than the CM (48.6%) or Mx (50.3%) groups, a result that was statistically significant after controlling for patients' characteristics (Odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 - 1.89). Patients seen by homeopaths or mixed practice physicians who were not the regular treating physician, had more often a chronic MSD than those seen in conventional medicine (Odds ratios were 1.75; 95% CI: 1.22 - 2.50 and 1.48; 95% CI: 1.06 - 2.12, respectively). Otherwise patients in the three groups did not differ for co-morbidities and QOL.

CONCLUSION

MSD patients consulting primary care physicians who prescribed homeopathy and CAMs differed from those seen in conventional medicine. Chronic MSD patients represented a greater proportion of the clientele in physicians offering alternatives to conventional medicine. In addition, these physicians treated chronic patients as consulting rather than regular treating physicians, with potentially important impacts upon professional health care practices and organisation.

Cost of care for common back pain conditions initiated with chiropractic doctor vs medical doctor/doctor of osteopathy as first physician: experience of one Tennessee-based general health insurer

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to determine if there are differences in the cost of low back pain care when a patient is able to choose a course of treatment with a medical doctor (MD) versus a doctor of chiropractic (DC), given that his/her insurance provides equal access to both provider types.

METHODS

A retrospective claims analysis was performed on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee's intermediate and large group fully insured population between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. The insured study population had open access to MDs and DCs through self-referral without any limit to the number of visits or differences in co-pays to these 2 provider types. Our analysis was based on episodes of care for low back pain. An episode was defined as all reimbursed care delivered between the first and the last encounter with a health care provider for low back pain. A 60 day window without an encounter was treated as a new episode. We compared paid claims and risk adjusted costs between episodes of care initiated with an MD with those initiated with a DC.

RESULTS

Paid costs for episodes of care initiated with a DC were almost 40% less than episodes initiated with an MD. Even after risk adjusting each patient's costs, we found that episodes of care initiated with a DC were 20% less expensive than episodes initiated with an MD.

CONCLUSIONS

Beneficiaries in our sampling frame had lower overall episode costs for treatment of low back pain if they initiated care with a DC, when compared to those who initiated care with an MD.

Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent, costly, and challenging condition to manage. Clinicians must choose among numerous assessment and management options. Several recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on LBP have attempted to inform these decisions by evaluating and summarizing the best available supporting evidence. The quality and consistency of recommendations from these CPGs are currently unknown.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of recent CPGs and synthesize their recommendations on assessing and managing LBP for clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

Literature search using MEDLINE, National Guidelines Clearinghouse, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, Internet search engines, and references of known articles. Only CPGs related to both assessment and management of LBP written in English were eligible; CPGs that summarized evidence from before the year 2000 were excluded. Data related to methods and recommendations for assessment and management of LBP were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument by two reviewers.

RESULTS

The search uncovered 669 citations, of which 95 were potentially relevant and 10 were included in the review; 6 discussed acute LBP, 6 chronic LBP, and 6 LBP with neurologic involvement. Methods used to develop CPGs varied, but the overall methodological quality was high as defined by AGREE scores. Recommendations for assessment of LBP emphasized the importance of ruling out potentially serious spinal pathology, specific causes of LBP, and neurologic involvement, as well as identifying risk factors for chronicity and measuring the severity of symptoms and functional limitations, through the history, physical, and neurologic examination. Recommendations for management of acute LBP emphasized patient education, with short-term use of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or spinal manipulation therapy. For chronic LBP, the addition of back exercises, behavioral therapy, and short-term opioid analgesics was suggested. Management of LBP with neurologic involvement was similar, with additional consideration given to magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography to identify appropriate candidates willing to undergo epidural steroid injections or decompression surgery if more conservative approaches are not successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations from several recent CPGs regarding the assessment and management of LBP were similar. Clinicians who care for patients with LBP should endeavor to adopt these recommendations to improve patient care. Future CPGs may wish to invite coauthors from targeted clinician user groups, increase patient participation, update their literature searches before publication, conduct their own quality assessment of studies, and consider cost-effectiveness and other aspects in their recommendations more explicitly.

Comparison of health care expenditures among insured users and nonusers of complementary and alternative medicine in Washington State: a cost minimization analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this analysis was to compare health care expenditures between insured patients with back pain, fibromyalgia syndrome, or menopause symptoms who used complementary and alternative medical (CAM) providers for some of their care to a matched group of patients who did not use any CAM care. Insurance coverage was equivalent for both conventional and CAM providers.

DESIGN

Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. CAM-using patients were matched to CAM-nonusing patients based on age group, gender, index medical condition, overall disease burden, and prior-year expenditures.

RESULTS

Both unadjusted tests and linear regression models indicated that CAM users had lower average expenditures than nonusers. (Unadjusted: $3,797 versus $4,153, p = 0.0001; beta from linear regression -$367 for CAM users.) CAM users had higher outpatient expenditures that which were offset by lower inpatient and imaging expenditures. The largest difference was seen in the patients with the heaviest disease burdens among whom CAM users averaged $1,420 less than nonusers, p < 0.0001, which more than offset slightly higher average expenditures of $158 among CAM users with lower disease burdens.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that among insured patients with back pain, fibromyalgia, and menopause symptoms, after minimizing selection bias by matching patients who use CAM providers to those who do not, those who use CAM will have lower insurance expenditures than those who do not use CAM.

Cost minimization analysis of low back pain claims data for chiropractic vs medicine in a managed care organization

OBJECTIVE

A managed care organization (MCO) examined differences in allowed cost for managing low back pain by medical providers vs chiropractors in an integrated care environment. The purpose of this study is to provide a retrospective cost analysis of administrative data of chiropractic vs medical management of low back pain in a managed care setting.

METHODS

All patients with a low back pain-related diagnosis presenting for health care from January 2004 to June 2004 who were insured by an MCO in northeast Wisconsin were tracked. The cumulative health care costs incurred by this MCO during the 2-year period from January 2004 to December 2005 related to these back pain diagnoses were collected.

RESULTS

Allowed costs of chiropractic treatment were 12% greater than medical primary care and 60% less per case than other types of medical care combined, on a per-case basis: median cost of medical primary care was $365.00, chiropractic care was $417.00, and medical nonprimary care was $669.00.

CONCLUSION

This study of an MCO's low back pain allowed costs may be better redirected to primary care or chiropractic, given equivalent levels of case complexity. This study suggests chiropractic management as less expensive compared with medical management of back pain when care extends beyond primary care. Primary care management alone is virtually indistinguishable from chiropractic management in terms of costs.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among primary care patients in west Texas

BACKGROUND

This study explored factors related to practitioner-based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) usage among primary care clinic patients in rural West Texas areas, including physicians' awareness of their patients' CAM use.

METHODS

A convenience sample was drawn from nine clinics that served low-income populations. Surveys were distributed to patients during a 6-week period in the winter of 2006. The analytical sample included 1731 participants. Logistic regressions were conducted to explore the factors related to CAM use.

RESULTS

Of 1731 subjects, 52.0% (900) reported that they were currently using or had used CAM. The main types of CAM practitioners were chiropractor (42.7%) followed by massage therapist (33.3%) and herbalist (8.3%). Those who had discussed the use of alternative medicine with their physicians and those who had more days where they felt worried in the past 30 days were more likely to use CAM than their counterparts. Patients whose healthcare was covered by nonprivate insurance, those who rated their healthcare providers more highly, and those who agreed that their doctor visits were obtainable were less likely to use CAM.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM use is clearly not uncommon among primary care patients in rural areas, with more than half of patients reporting some type of use. This study suggests that further research should elicit opinions on CAM among people who do not regularly access a conventional primary care provider, as well as assess the relationship between CAM and conventional medical treatment in terms of cost and health benefits.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with needle acupuncture

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue to The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The economic burden of low back pain (LBP) is very large and appears to be growing. It is not possible to impact this burden without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the research on which these costs are calculated.

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of LBP cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

Medline was searched to uncover studies about the direct or indirect costs of LBP published in English from 1997 to 2007. Data extracted for each eligible study included study design, population, definition of LBP, methods of estimating costs, year of data, and estimates of direct, indirect, or total costs. Results were synthesized descriptively.

RESULTS

The search yielded 147 studies, of which 21 were deemed relevant; 4 other studies and 2 additional abstracts were found by searching reference lists, bringing the total to 27 relevant studies. The studies reported on data from Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. Nine studies estimated direct costs only, nine indirect costs only, and nine both direct and indirect costs, from a societal (n=18) or private insurer (n=9) perspective. Methodology used to derive both direct and indirect cost estimates differed markedly among the studies. Among studies providing a breakdown on direct costs, the largest proportion of direct medical costs for LBP was spent on physical therapy (17%) and inpatient services (17%), followed by pharmacy (13%) and primary care (13%). Among studies providing estimates of total costs, indirect costs resulting from lost work productivity represented a majority of overall costs associated with LBP. Three studies reported that estimates with the friction period approach were 56% lower than with the human capital approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Several studies have attempted to estimate the direct, indirect, or total costs associated with LBP in various countries using heterogeneous methodology. Estimates of the economic costs in different countries vary greatly depending on study methodology but by any standards must be considered a substantial burden on society. This review did not identify any studies estimating the total costs of LBP in the United States from a societal perspective. Such studies may be helpful in determining appropriate allocation of health-care resources devoted to this condition.

Do chiropractors adhere to guidelines for back radiographs? A study of chiropractic teaching clinics in Canada

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical cohort.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the adherence to 3 radiography guidelines for low back pain in chiropractic teaching clinics.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Evidence-based guidelines for low back pain suggest that plain radiography should be restricted to patients with suspected serious disease. Among primary healthcare providers who can request radiographs, chiropractors are thought to have utilization rates that exceed what is recommended by practice guidelines. It is uncertain whether this gap between evidence and practice begins in undergraduate training.

METHODS

We screened 1241 consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to any of the 6 out-patient teaching clinics of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College between January 2004 and September 2004. We collected information about red flags and radiography recommendations from patients and chiropractic trainees using self-administered questionnaires. Radiography recommendations were compared with criteria used in 3 radiography guidelines. Adherence was measured as the proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography.

RESULTS

Of the 503 eligible patients, 448 (89.1%) agreed to participate in the study. Radiography was recommended for 12.3% of patients. According to the selected radiography guidelines, the proportion of patients with red flags ranged from 45.3% to 70.5%. The proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography ranged from 89.4% (95% confidence interval, 85.5%-93.2%) to 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 90.9%-98.5%) for the selected guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a strong adherence to radiography guidelines for patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to chiropractic teaching clinics. Although a high proportion of patients had red flags, radiography utilization was lower than rates reported in previous studies suggesting that adherence to guidelines may help prevent unnecessary radiography.

Naturopathic care for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial

Objective

Chronic low back pain represents a substantial cost to employers through benefits coverage and days missed due to incapacity. We sought to explore the effectiveness of Naturopathic care on chronic low back pain.

Methods

This study was a randomized clinical trial. We randomized 75 postal employees with low back pain of longer than six weeks duration to receive Naturopathic care (n = 39) or standardized physiotherapy (n = 36) over a period of 12 weeks. The study was conducted in clinics on-site in postal outlets. Participants in the Naturopathic care group received dietary counseling, deep breathing relaxation techniques and acupuncture. The control intervention received education and instruction on physiotherapy exercises using an approved education booklet. We measured low back pain using the Oswestry disability questionnaire as the primary outcome measure, and quality of life using the SF-36 in addition to low back range of motion, weight loss, and Body Mass Index as secondary outcomes.

Results

Sixty-nine participants (92%) completed eight weeks or greater of the trial. Participants in the Naturopathic care group reported significantly lower back pain (−6.89, 95% CI. −9.23 to −3.54, p = <0.0001) as measured by the Oswestry questionnaire. Quality of life was also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care in all domains except for vitality. Differences for the aggregate physical component of the SF-36 was 8.47 (95% CI, 5.05 to 11.87, p = <0.0001) and for the aggregate mental component was 7.0 (95% CI, 2.25 to 11.75, p = 0.0045). All secondary outcomes were also significantly improved in the group receiving Naturopathic care: spinal flexion (p<0.0001), weight-loss (p = 0.0052) and Body Mass Index (−0.52, 95% CI, −0.96 to −0.08, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Naturopathic care provided significantly greater improvement than physiotherapy advice for patients with chronic low back pain.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN41920953

Chiropractic and CAM utilization: a descriptive review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a descriptive review of the scientific literature examining use rates of modalities and procedures used by CAM clinicians to manage chronic LBP and other conditions

DATA SOURCES

A literature of PubMed and MANTIS was performed using the key terms Chiropractic; Low Back Pain; Utilization Rate; Use Rate; Complementary and Alternative Medicine; and Health Services in various combinations.

DATA SELECTION

A total of 137 papers were selected, based upon including information about chiropractic utilization, CAM utilization and low back pain and other conditions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Information was extracted from each paper addressing use of chiropractic and CAM, and is summarized in tabular form.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of the paper topics indicated that there were 5 functional areas covered by the literature: back pain papers, general chiropractic papers, insurance-related papers, general CAM-related papers; and worker's compensation papers.

CONCLUSION

Studies looking at chiropractic utilization demonstrate that the rates vary, but generally fall into a range from around 6% to 12% of the population, most of whom seek chiropractic care for low back pain and not for organic disease or visceral dysfunction. CAM is itself used by people suffering from a variety of conditions, though it is often used not as a primary intervention, but rather as an additional form of care. CAM and chiropractic often offer lower costs for comparable results compared to conventional medicine.

The effect of complementary and alternative medicine claims on risk adjustment

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess how the inclusion of claims from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers affects measures of morbidity burden and expectations of health care resource use for insured patients.

METHODS

Claims data from Washington State were used to create 2 versions of a case-mix index. One version included claims from all provider types; the second version omitted claims from CAM providers who are covered under commercial insurance. Expected resource use was also calculated. The distribution of expected and actual resource use was then compared for the 2 indices.

RESULTS

Inclusion of claims from CAM providers shifted 19,650 (32%) CAM users into higher morbidity categories. When morbidity categories were defined using claims from all providers, CAM users in the highest morbidity category had average (+/-SD) annual expenditures of $6661 (+/-$13,863). This was less than those in the highest morbidity category when CAM provider claims were not included in the index ($8562 +/- $16,354), and was also lower than the highest morbidity patients who did not use any CAM services ($8419 +/- $18,885).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of services from CAM providers under third-party payment increases risk scores for their patients but expectations of costs for this group are lower than expected had costs been estimated based only on services from traditional providers. Risk adjustment indices may need recalibration when adding services from provider groups not included in the development of the index.

Challenges of using medical insurance claims data for utilization analysis

Research use of insurance claims data presents unique challenges and requires a series of value judgments that are intended to improve the data quality. In this study, medical insurance claims from 2 large companies were combined to assess utilization of complementary and alternative medicine. Challenges included assessing and improving the quality of data, combining data from 2 different companies with dissimilar coding systems, and determining the most appropriate ways to describe utilization. This article addresses 4 methodologic challenges in creating the analytic files: (1) conversion of claims into unique visits, (2) identification of incomplete claims data, (3) categorization of providers and locations of service, and (4) selecting the most useful measures of utilization and expenditures.