A National Study of Primary Care Provided by Osteopathic Physicians

Osteopathic manipulative treatment of patients with chronic low back pain in the United States: a retrospective cohort study

CONTEXT

The practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) varies substantially across nations. Much of this variability may be attributed to disparate international educational, licensing, and regulatory environments that govern the practice of osteopathy by nonphysicians. This is in contrast with the United States, where osteopathic physicians are trained to integrate OMT as part of comprehensive patient management.

OBJECTIVES

This study will analyze the factors associated with OMT use and its outcomes when integrated within the overall medical care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) provided by osteopathic physicians in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through April 2022 to study the effectiveness of OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians. The outcome measures, which included pain intensity, pain impact, physical function, and health-related quality of life, were assessed with the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 1,358 adults with CLBP entered the cohort (mean age, 53.2 years; 74.4% female), 913 completed the final quarterly encounter, 348 were in various stages of follow-up, and 97 had withdrawn. Blacks (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.63; p<0.001), cigarette smokers (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; p=0.02), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.81; p=0.001) were less likely to have utilized OMT in the multivariable analysis. Mean between-group differences among 753 participants with no OMT crossover and complete follow-up favored OMT: 1.02 (95% CI, 0.63-1.42; p<0.001) for pain intensity; 5.12 (95% CI, 3.09-7.16; p<0.001) for pain impact; 3.59 (95% CI, 2.23-4.95; p<0.001) for physical function, and 2.73 (95% CI, 1.19-4.27; p<0.001) for health-related quality of life. Analyses involving propensity-score adjustment and inclusion of participants with missing data yielded similar conclusions. None of 12 prespecified participant characteristics demonstrated an OMT interaction effect.

CONCLUSIONS

OMT integrated within medical care provided by osteopathic physicians for CLBP was associated with improved pain and related outcomes. Its use may be facilitated by the growing osteopathic physician workforce in the United States and adherence to relevant clinical practice guidelines.

Pain and functional recovery from chronic low back pain over 12 months: implications for osteopathic medicine

CONTEXT

Although low back pain is a common medical condition that often progresses to become a chronic problem, little is known about the likelihood of recovery from chronic low back pain (CLBP).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to measure the risk of recovery from CLBP based on low back pain intensity and back-related functioning measures reported by participants within a pain research registry over 12 months of observation and to consider the implications for osteopathic medicine.

METHODS

A total of 740 participants with CLBP in the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation in the United States were studied between April 2016 and October 2021. Inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery were assembled from the participants who did not meet the recovery criteria at registry enrollment. The pain recovery criterion was having a score of ≤1/10 on a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, and the functional recovery criterion was having a score of ≤4/24 on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. A total of 737 and 692 participants were included in the inception cohorts for pain recovery and functional recovery, respectively. Participants provided follow-up data at quarterly encounters over 12 months to determine if they achieved and maintained a pain or functional recovery from CLBP over the entire period of observation. Logistic regression was utilized to identify factors associated with recovery.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants at baseline was 52.9 years (SD, 13.1 years) and 551 (74.5%) were female. No participant reported a pain recovery that was maintained over all four quarterly encounters, whereas 16 participants (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4%) maintained a functional recovery. Having high levels of pain self-efficacy (OR, 17.50; 95% CI, 2.30-133.23; p=0.006) and being Hispanic (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.11-11.37; p=0.03) were associated with functional recovery, and high levels of pain catastrophizing (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.65; p=0.01) and having chronic widespread pain (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.66; p=0.007) were inversely associated with functional recovery. The findings for pain self-efficacy and Hispanic ethnicity remained significant in the multivariate analysis that adjusted for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of pain recovery and the low likelihood of functional recovery observed in our study suggests that osteopathic physicians should embrace a biopsychosocial approach to CLBP management and work with patients to set realistic expectations based on more pragmatic outcome measures, such as those that address health-related quality of life. The findings also suggest the potential importance of patient education and counseling to enhance pain self-efficacy.

Preventing progression from chronic to widespread pain and its impact on health-related quality of life: a historical cohort study of osteopathic medical care

CONTEXT

It is generally acknowledged that osteopathic physicians take a holistic approach to patient care. This style may help prevent the progression of painful musculoskeletal conditions, particularly if combined with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT).

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to determine if osteopathic medical care lowers the risk of progression from localized chronic low back pain to widespread pain and lessens the impact of pain on health-related quality of life.

METHODS

A historical cohort study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry) using data acquired from April 2016 through March 2021. Registry participants aged 21-79 years with chronic low back pain at the baseline encounter were potentially eligible for inclusion if they had a treating physician, completed all four quarterly follow-up encounters, and did not report physician crossover at the final 12-month encounter. Eligible participants were classified according to the type of physician provider at baseline and thereby into osteopathic or allopathic medical care groups. Participants were also classified according to prior use of OMT at the final encounter. Widespread pain was measured at baseline and each quarterly encounter to determine the period prevalence rate of widespread pain and its severity over 12 months using the Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Participants who reported "not being bothered at all" by widespread pain during each encounter were classified as not having widespread pain, whereas those who were bothered "a little" or "a lot" at any quarterly encounter were classified as having widespread pain. The severity of widespread pain was measured by summing participant responses at each encounter. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System was used at each encounter to measure health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores for physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, and pain interference with activities.

RESULTS

A total of 462 participants were studied, including 101 (21.9%) in the osteopathic medical care group and 73 (15.8%) who used OMT. The mean age of participants at baseline was 52.7 ± 13.2 years (range, 22-79 years) and 336 (72.7%) were female. A lower period prevalence rate of widespread pain was observed in the osteopathic medical care group (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; p=0.006) and in the OMT group (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; p=0.004), although the latter finding did not persist after adjustment for potential confounders. The osteopathic medical care and OMT groups both reported lower widespread pain severity. The osteopathic medical care group also reported better age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for each of the seven HRQOL dimensions throughout the study. The OMT group reported better outcomes in five of the HRQOL dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the view that osteopathic physicians practice a holistic approach to medical care that manifests itself through a lower risk of progression from chronic low back pain to widespread pain, lower widespread pain severity, and lesser deficits in HRQOL. Similar findings were generally associated with OMT use.

Patient-centered care or osteopathic manipulative treatment as mediators of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain

CONTEXT

Patient-centered care is often considered a characteristic of osteopathic medicine, in addition to the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in such musculoskeletal conditions as low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if patient-centered care or OMT are mediators of the clinical outcomes of osteopathic medicine in patients with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A comparative effectiveness study was conducted within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION Pain Research Registry). Eligible patients met the diagnostic criteria recommended by the National Institutes of Health Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain and completed four consecutive quarterly encounters between April 2016 and November 2020. The Consultation and Relational Empathy instrument for patient-centered care was used at the baseline encounter and OMT use was measured at the final encounter. The clinical outcome measures included low back pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10, back-related functioning on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and pain impact on the National Institutes of Health Minimum Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain (NIH-MDS). A parallel multiple mediator model was used to compute the direct and indirect effects of osteopathic medicine in achieving each of the three clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The 404 study patients had a mean age of 52.2 years (standard deviation, 13.1 years) and 288 (71.3%) were female. The 88 (21.8%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians reported more favorable scores for patient-centered care (mean, 41.3; 95% CI 39.0-43.5) than patients treated by allopathic physicians (mean, 38.0; 95% CI 36.8-39.3) (p=0.02). Fifty-six (63.6%) patients treated by osteopathic physicians used OMT. The age- and sex-adjusted outcomes for patients of osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians across all four encounters were: mean, 5.4; 95% CI 5.0-5.7 vs. mean, 5.9; 95% CI 5.7-6.1 on the NRS for pain intensity (p=0.01); mean, 11.3; 95% CI 10.1-12.6 vs. mean, 14.0; 95% CI 13.3-14.7 on the RMDQ for back-related disability (p<0.001); and mean, 26.8; 95% CI 24.9-28.7 vs. mean, 30.1; 95% CI 29.1-31.1 on the NIH-MDS for pain impact (p=0.002). Patient-centered care did not mediate any outcome of osteopathic medicine, whereas OMT mediated better outcomes in low back pain intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

This appears to be the first study to simultaneously address both patient-centered care and OMT as potential mediators of the effect of osteopathic medicine in treating chronic pain. Patient-centered care did not mediate the effects of osteopathic medicine and OMT only mediated outcomes relating to low back pain intensity. More research is needed to identify other aspects of osteopathic medicine that mediate its beneficial effects in patients with chronic low back pain.

Distinguishing chronic low back pain in young adults with mild to moderate pain and disability using trunk compliance

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) rates among younger individuals are rising. Although pain and disability are often less severe, underlying changes in trunk behavior may be responsible for recurrence. We examine the biomarker capacity of a simple Trunk Compliance Index (TCI) to distinguish individuals with and without cLBP. A random subset (n = 49) of the RELIEF RCT were matched to healthy controls for sex, age, height and weight. We measured TCI (as displacement/ weight-normalized perturbation force) using anthropometrically-matched, suddenly-applied pulling perturbations to the trunk segment, randomized across three planes of motion (antero-posterior, medio-lateral, and rotational). Mean differences between cLBP, sex and perturbation direction were assessed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. Discriminatory accuracy of TCI was assessed using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Baseline characteristics between groups were equivalent (x̅ [range]): sex (57% female / group), age (23.0 [18-45], 22.8 [18-45]), height, cm (173.0 [156.5-205], 171.3 [121.2-197], weight, kg (71.8 [44.5-116.6], 71.7 [46.8-117.5]) with cLBP associated with significantly lower TCI for 5 of 6 directions (range mean difference, - 5.35: - 1.49, range 95% CI [- 6.46: - 2.18 to - 4.35: - 0.30]. Classification via ROC showed that composite TCI had high discriminatory potential (area under curve [95% CI], 0.90 [0.84-0.96]), driven by TCI from antero-posterior perturbations (area under curve [95% CI], 0.99 [0.97-1.00]). Consistent reductions in TCI suggests global changes in trunk mechanics that may go undetected in classic clinical examination. Evaluation of TCI in younger adults with mild pain and disability may serve as a biomarker for chronicity, leading to improved preventative measures in cLBP.Trial Registration and Funding RELIEF is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01854892) and funded by the NIH National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (R01AT006978).

Osteopathic Manipulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.

Osteopathic Medical Care With and Without Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pain Registry-Based Study

Context

The OSTEOPATHIC Trial demonstrated substantial improvement in pain intensity, decreased need for rescue medication for pain, and greater likelihood of recovery in patients with chronic low back pain who received 6 osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) sessions over 3 months.

Objective

To assess osteopathic medical care and the effectiveness of OMT for chronic low back pain in a real-world setting without the constraints of a rigid research protocol.

Methods

An observational study of 445 adults with chronic low back pain who had an established osteopathic physician (ie, DO) or allopathic physician (ie, MD) was conducted within the PRECISION Pain Research Registry from April 2016 through February 2019. Primary outcome measures included a numerical rating scale for low back pain intensity, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for back-related functioning, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids for low back pain.

Results

A total of 79, 48, and 318 patients, respectively, were treated by DOs who used OMT, DOs who did not use OMT, or MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT reported significantly lesser low back pain intensity (mean numerical rating score, 5.6; 95% CI, 5.1-6.1 vs 6.1; 95% CI, 5.9-6.3; P=.04) and back-related disability (mean Roland-Morris Disability score, 12.4; 95% CI, 11.1-13.8 vs 14.4; 95% CI, 13.7-15.0; P=.009) than patients treated by MDs. Patients treated by DOs who used OMT also reported less frequent use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (multivariate odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.70; P=.001) or opioids (multivariate odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P=.04). There were no significant differences in primary outcomes between DOs who did not use OMT and MDs.

Conclusion

This study of community-based patients in a pain research registry supports the effectiveness of OMT as an integral component of osteopathic medical care for chronic low back pain. Patients treated by DOs who did not use OMT did not experience better results than patients treated by MDs in any primary outcome measure. Further research is needed to more specifically compare the effects of OMT with other treatment effects that may be attributed to patient-DO interactions during medical encounters.

Effect of Osteopathic Cranial Manipulative Medicine on an Aged Rat Model of Alzheimer Disease

CONTEXT

In the aging brain, reduction in the pulsation of cerebral vasculature and fluid circulation causes impairment in the fluid exchange between different compartments and lays a foundation for the neuroinflammation that results in Alzheimer disease (AD). The knowledge that lymphatic vessels in the central nervous system play a role in the clearance of brain-derived metabolic waste products opens an unprecedented capability to increase the clearance of macromolecules such as amyloid β proteins. However, currently there is no pharmacologic mechanism available to increase fluid circulation in the aging brain.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the influence of an osteopathic cranial manipulative medicine (OCMM) technique, specifically, compression of the fourth ventricle, on spatial memory and changes in substrates associated with mechanisms of metabolic waste clearance in the central nervous system using the naturally aged rat model of AD.

RESULTS

Significant improvement was found in spatial memory in 6 rats after 7 days of OCMM sessions. Live animal positron emission tomographic imaging and immunoassays revealed that OCMM reduced amyloid β levels, activated astrocytes, and improved neurotransmission in the aged rat brains.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate the molecular mechanism of OCMM in aged rats. This study and further investigations will help physicians promote OCMM as an evidence-based adjunctive treatment for patients with AD.

Empathy in Medicine Osteopathic and Allopathic Physician Interpersonal Manner, Empathy, and Communication Style and Clinical Status of Their Patients: A Pain Registry–Based Study

Context

Comparisons of osteopathic physicians (ie, DOs) and allopathic physicians (ie, MDs) on interpersonal manner, including empathy and communication style, have been limited by such methodologic issues as self-assessment and a focus on medical students rather than practicing physicians.

Objective

To compare perceptions of the interpersonal manner, empathy, and communication style of DOs and MDs and corresponding clinical measures reported by their patients.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of adults with subacute or chronic low back pain was conducted within the PRECISION Pain Research Registry from April 2016 through December 2018. A total of 313 patients having their physician for 1 year or longer reported sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for low back pain. Using validated research instruments, they also reported perceptions of their physician's interpersonal manner, empathy, and communication style and clinical measures of pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, low back pain intensity, back-related disability, and deficits in quality of life relating to sleep disturbance, pain interference with activities, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue.

Results

Patients treated by DOs were less likely to be using NSAIDs (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.997) or opioids (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-0.998) than patients treated by MDs. Patients treated by DOs reported lesser pain catastrophizing (mean, 12.5; 95% CI, 10.1-15.0 for DOs vs 18.1; 95% CI, 16.3-19.9 for MDs; P<.001) and greater pain self-efficacy (mean, 39.5; 95% CI, 36.3-42.8 for DOs vs 35.3; 95% CI, 33.4-37.3 for MDs; P=.03). Correspondingly, patients treated by DOs reported lesser back-related disability (mean, 11.2; 95% CI, 9.9-12.5 for DOs vs 13.5; 95% CI, 12.8-14.3 for MDs; P=.002) and a trend toward lesser deficits in quality of life. Patients reported more favorable perceptions of DOs on interpersonal manner (mean, 4.3; 95% CI, 4.2-4.5 for DOs vs 4.0; 95% CI, 3.9-4.2 for MDs; P=.01) and empathy (mean, 41.2; 95% CI, 39.1-43.3 for DOs vs 38.0; 95% CI, 36.5-39.5 for MDs; P=.02).

Conclusion

The mechanisms underlying lesser use of NSAIDs and opioids, superior clinical status measures, and more favorable perceptions of physician interpersonal manner and empathy reported by patients treated by DOs warrant further investigation.

A workforce survey of Australian osteopathy: analysis of a nationally-representative sample of osteopaths from the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) project

Background

Limited information is available regarding the profile and clinical practice characteristics of the osteopathy workforce in Australia. This paper reports such information by analysing data from a nationally-representative sample of Australian osteopaths.

Methods

Data was obtained from a workforce survey of Australian osteopathy, investigating the characteristics of the practitioner, their practice, clinical management features and perceptions regarding research. The survey questionnaire was distributed to all registered osteopaths across Australia in 2016 as part of the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) project.

Results

A total of 992 Australian osteopaths participated in this study representing a response rate of 49.1%. The average age of the participants was 38.0 years with 58.1% being female and the majority holding a Bachelor or higher degree qualification related to the osteopathy professional. Approximately 80.0% of the osteopaths were practicing in an urban area, with most osteopaths working in multi-practitioner locations, having referral relationships with a range of health care practitioners, managing patients a number of musculoskeletal disorders, and providing multi-model treatment options.

Conclusions

A total of 3.9 million patients were estimated to consult with osteopaths every year and an average of approximate 3.0 million hours were spent delivering osteopathy services per year. Further research is required to provide rich, in-depth examination regarding a range of osteopathy workforce issues which will help ensure safe, effective patient care to all receiving and providing treatments as part of the broader Australian health system.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3158-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.