Dataset Information

Association of chiropractic integration in an Ontario community health centre with prescription opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain: a mixed methods study protocol

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Emerging evidence from a number of primary care centres suggests that integration of chiropractic services into chronic pain management is associated with improved clinical outcomes and high patient satisfaction as well as with reductions in physician visits, specialist referrals use of advanced imaging and prescribing of analgesics. However, formal assessments of the integration of chiropractic services into primary care settings are sparse, and the impact of such integration on prescription opioid use in chronic pain management remains uncertain. To help address this knowledge gap, we will conduct a mixed methods health service evaluation of an integrated chiropractic back pain programme in an urban community health centre in Ontario, Canada. This centre provides services to vulnerable populations with high unemployment rates, multiple comorbidities and musculoskeletal disorders that are commonly managed with prescription opioids.

Methods and analysis

We will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, which consists of a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase. In the quantitative phase, we will conduct a retrospective chart review and evaluate whether receipt of chiropractic services is associated with reduced opioid use among patients already prescribed opioid therapy for chronic pain. We will measure opioid prescriptions (ie, opioid fills, number of refills and dosages) by reviewing electronic medical records of recipients and non-recipients of chiropractic services between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2020 and use multivariable regression analysis to examine the association. In the qualitative phase, we will conduct in-depth, one-on-one interviews of patients and their general practitioners to explore perceptions of chiropractic integration and its impact on opioid use.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board at McMaster University (approval number 2021–10930). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and in-person or webinar presentations to community members and healthcare professionals.

SUBMITTER: Emary P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572393 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests that access to chiropractic care may reduce the likelihood of initiating an opioid prescription for spinal pain; however, the impact of chiropractic care for patients already prescribed opioids is uncertain. We undertook a sequential explanatory mixed methods study to evaluate the association between initiating chiropractic care and continued opioid use among adult patients attending an Ontario community health centre (CHC) and receiving opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer spinal pain.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 210 patient records between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020. We used generalized estimating equations, adjusted for patient demographics, co-morbidities, visit frequency, and calendar year, to evaluate the association between receipt versus non-receipt of chiropractic services and continued opioid use (e.g., unique opioid fills, number of refills, and dosages) up to one year following the index chiropractic visit. We also completed follow-up interviews with 14 patients and nine general practitioners from the CHC and integrated these data with our quantitative findings.ResultsOver 12-month follow-up, there were lower rates of opioid fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.83) and refills (IRR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.42) among chiropractic recipients (n = 49) versus non-recipients (n = 161). Although patients who did and did not receive chiropractic care began the study with the same dose of opioids, recipients were less likely to be prescribed higher-dose opioids (i.e., ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents daily) compared to non-recipients at three months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.47), six months (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.40), nine months (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57), and 12 months (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.62). Interviews suggested that patient self-efficacy, limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain, stigma regarding use of opioids, and access to chiropractic treatment were important influencing factors.ConclusionWe found that continued prescription opioid use among patients with chronic non-cancer spinal pain who received chiropractic care was lower than in patients who did not receive chiropractic care. Four themes emerged in our qualitative interviews to help provide a richer understanding of this association. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the effect of chiropractic care on opioid use for chronic spinal pain.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial recent research examines the efficacy of many types of complementary and alternative (CAM) therapies. However, outcomes associated with the "real-world" use of CAM has been largely overlooked, despite calls for CAM therapies to be studied in the manner in which they are practiced. Americans seek CAM treatments far more often for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) than for any other condition. Among CAM treatments for CMP, acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) care are among those with the highest acceptance by physician groups and the best evidence to support their use. Further, recent alarming increases in delivery of opioid treatment and surgical interventions for chronic pain--despite their high costs, potential adverse effects, and modest efficacy--suggests the need to evaluate real world outcomes associated with promising non-pharmacological/non-surgical CAM treatments for CMP, which are often well accepted by patients and increasingly used in the community.Methods/designThis multi-phase, mixed methods study will: (1) conduct a retrospective study using information from electronic medical records (EMRs) of a large HMO to identify unique clusters of patients with CMP (e.g., those with differing demographics, histories of pain condition, use of allopathic and CAM health services, and comorbidity profiles) that may be associated with different propensities for A/C utilization and/or differential outcomes associated with such care; (2) use qualitative interviews to explore allopathic providers' recommendations for A/C and patients' decisions to pursue and retain CAM care; and (3) prospectively evaluate health services/costs and broader clinical and functional outcomes associated with the receipt of A/C relative to carefully matched comparison participants receiving traditional CMP services. Sensitivity analyses will compare methods relying solely on EMR-derived data versus analyses supplementing EMR data with conventionally collected patient and clinician data.DiscussionSuccessful completion of these aggregate aims will provide an evaluation of outcomes associated with the real-world use of A/C services. The trio of retrospective, qualitative, and prospective study will also provide a clearer understanding of the decision-making processes behind the use of A/C for CMP and a transportable methodology that can be applied to other health care settings, CAM treatments, and clinical populations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01345409.

Project description:BackgroundPatient safety research has lagged within academic settings, including chiropractic teaching institutions. To develop a robust patient safety culture, the Institute of Medicine emphasized the need for employee's attitudes to be understanding and positive. To initiate the assessment of the current culture and future needs, this study evaluated patient safety attitudes among chiropractic teaching clinic stakeholders (supervising clinicians, student interns, and administrative staff) and compared their standardized survey scores to established medical survey databases.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey design with quantitative analytic priority. Chiropractic interns, clinical faculty, and clinic staff of 5 international chiropractic educational programs completed a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Culture for Medical Offices Survey with open-ended comment fields between 2014 and 2016. Composite means of positive responses were calculated and compared to patient safety, quality of care, and overall self-ratings benchmarks from Canadian providers and academic settings in the AHRQ database. Qualitative responses were thematically categorized for a convergent analysis of quantitative results for the chiropractic sample.ResultsChiropractic survey response rate was 45.3% (n = 645). Quantitative survey results indicated moderate scores and ranges (57-85%) on all patient safety dimensions for the chiropractic samples. Academic medicine and chiropractic providers' benchmarks scored higher positive responses than chiropractic teaching clinics on most quantitative dimensions, except for work pressure/pace. Teamwork, organizational learning, and patient tracking/follow-up were the most positively endorsed quantitative dimensions, with communication, staff training, office standardization, and leadership support considered areas for improvement in both settings. Qualitative responses for the chiropractic clinics identified a need for open communication; additional staff training and student involvement in creating safety cultures; standardization of office processes including information exchange, scheduling, and equipment maintenance; and leadership support that focused on decreasing work pressure/pace and setting safety priorities.ConclusionAs the first report of patient safety attitudes from stakeholders in chiropractic teaching clinics, specific areas of improvement were identified. Chiropractic teaching programs might consider incorporating these and related patient safety concepts into their formal curricula. Mixed methods approach offers teaching clinics opportunities to assess stakeholders' insights and enhance safe delivery of chiropractic care.

Project description:PurposeThe Canadian Addiction Treatment Centre (CATC) cohort was established during a period of increased provision of opioid agonist treatment (OAT), to study patient outcomes and trends related to the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada. The CATC cohort's strengths lie in its unique physician network, shared care model and event-level data, making it valuable for validation and integration studies. The CATC cohort is a valuable resource for examining OAT outcomes, providing insights into substance use trends and the impact of service-level factors.ParticipantsThe CATC cohort comprises 32 246 people who received OAT prescriptions between April 2014 and February 2021, with ongoing tri-annual updates planned until 2027. The cohort includes data from all CATC clinics' electronic medical records and includes demographic information and OAT clinical indicators.Findings to dateThis cohort profile describes the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients being treated in a large OAT physician network. As well, we report the longitudinal OAT retention by treatment type during a time of increasing exposure to a contaminated dangerous drug supply. Notable findings also include retention differences between methadone (32% of patients at 1 year) and buprenorphine (20% at 1 year). Previously published research from this cohort indicated that patient-level factors associated with retention include geographic location, concurrent substance use and prior treatment attempts. Service-level factors such as telemedicine delivery and frequency of urine drug screenings also influence retention. Additionally, the cohort identified rising OAT participation and a substantial increase in fentanyl use during the COVID-19 pandemic.Future plansFuture research objectives are the longitudinal evaluation of retention and flexible modelling techniques that account for the changes as patients are treated with OAT. Furthermore, future research aims are the use of conditional models, and linkage with provincial-level administrative datasets.

Project description:Volunteers are critical to supporting health care systems worldwide. For organisations that rely on volunteers, service to clients can be disrupted when volunteers leave their roles. Volunteer retention is a multi-layered phenomenon. In this mixed methods case-control study, we compared two naturally-occurring volunteer groups supporting a complex primary care-based programme for older adults in the community: volunteers retained by the programme, and volunteers that left. Our objectives were to describe differences between the groups and also understand how compassion changed over time for those that stayed. We collected quantitative data on demographics, the UCLA Geriatric Attitudes Scale, the Professional Quality of Life Index, the Basic Empathy Scale, the Reasons for Volunteering subscale of the Volunteerism Questionnaire and the 5-level EQ-5D. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups/interviews. Overall, 78 volunteers completed surveys and 23 participated in focus groups/interviews. Volunteers that stayed were more likely to be a little older and were a slightly higher proportion male than those who left. They also had significantly less positive attitudes towards older adults, descriptively lower Cognitive Empathy and descriptively higher Secondary Traumatic Stress. Compared to volunteers who left, volunteers retained were more likely to have said they were volunteering for Enhancement or Social purposes; however, these differences were non-significant. Over time, Compassion Satisfaction decreased with a medium effect size for those that stayed, and Burnout decreased with a small effect size. Volunteers that stayed described more logistical and client-related aspects of the programme were working well. We recommend that volunteer programmes communicate positive programme impacts that could enhance volunteers' development, communicate any client impacts to volunteers to reinforce volunteers' purposes for volunteering (thus reinforcing that their work is meaningful), and ensure logistical aspects of volunteer role work well.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.Methods and designThis paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.DiscussionThis mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333.