Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

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

Objective

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

Study design

Observational 3-month longitudinal study.

Setting

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Limitations

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

Conclusions

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

SUBMITTER: Herman PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8667562 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. METHODS:Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory-in this case, Anderson's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. RESULTS:Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p =?.008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30?years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. CONCLUSIONS:Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Project description:Study designA prospective observational study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate group-level and individual-level change in health-related quality of life among persons with chronic low back pain or neck pain receiving chiropractic care in the United States.Summary of background dataChiropractors treat chronic low back and neck pain, but there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of their treatment METHODS.: A 3-month longitudinal study of 2024 patients with chronic low back pain or neck pain receiving care from 125 chiropractic clinics at six locations throughout the United States was conducted. Ninety-one percent of the sample completed the baseline and 3-month follow-up survey (n = 1835). Average age was 49, 74% females, and most of the sample had a college degree, were non-Hispanic White, worked full-time, and had an annual income of $60,000 or more. Group-level (within-group t tests) and individual-level (coefficient of repeatability) changes on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) v2.0 profile measure was evaluated: six multi-item scales (physical functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social health, emotional distress) and physical and mental health summary scores.ResultsWithin-group t tests indicated significant group-level change (P < 0.05) for all scores except for emotional distress, and these changes represented small improvements in health (absolute value of effect sizes ranged from 0.08 for physical functioning to 0.20 for pain). From 13% (physical functioning) to 30% (PROMIS-29 v2.0 Mental Health Summary Score) got better from baseline to 3 months later according to the coefficient of repeatability.ConclusionChiropractic care was associated with significant group-level improvement in health-related quality of life over time, especially in pain. But only a minority of the individuals in the sample got significantly better ("responders"). This study suggests some benefits of chiropractic on functioning and well-being of patients with low back pain or neck pain.Level of evidence3.

Project description:BackgroundExercise and education is recommended as first-line treatment by evidence-based, international guidelines for low back pain (LBP). Despite consensus regarding the treatment, there is a gap between guidelines and what is offered to patients. Digital LBP treatments are an emerging way of delivering first-line treatment.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes after participation in a 3-month digitally delivered treatment program for individuals with subacute or chronic LBP.MethodsWe analyzed data from 2593 consecutively recruited participants in a digitally delivered treatment program, available via the national health care system in Sweden. The program consists of video-instructed and progressive adaptable exercises, education through text lessons, and a chat and video function connecting participants with a personal physiotherapist. The primary outcome was mean change and proportion reaching a minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for LBP (2 points or 30% decrease) assessed with the numerical rating scale (average pain during the past week, discrete boxes, 0-10, best to worst). Secondary outcomes were mean change and proportion reaching MCIC (10 points or 30%) in disability, assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; 0-100, best to worst) and a question on patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).ResultsThe mean participant age was 63 years, 73.85% (1915/2593) were female, 54.72% (1419/2593) had higher education, 50.56% (1311/2593) were retired, and the mean BMI was 26.5 kg/m2. Participants completed on average 84% of the prescribed exercises and lessons, with an adherence of ≥80% in 69.26% (1796/2593) and ≥90% in 50.13% (1300/2593) of the participants. Mean reduction in pain from baseline to 3 months was 1.7 (95% CI -1.8 to -1.6), corresponding to a 35% relative change. MCIC was reached by 58.50% (1517/2593) of participants. ODI decreased 4 points (95% CI -4.5 to -3.7), and 36.48% (946/2593) reached an MCIC. A change from no to yes in PASS was seen in 30.35% (787/2593) of participants. Multivariable analysis showed positive associations between reaching an MCIC in pain and high baseline pain (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.1), adherence (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.8), and motivation (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5), while we found negative associations for wish for surgery (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.9) and pain in other joints (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-0.9). We found no associations between sociodemographic characteristics and pain reduction.ConclusionsParticipants in this digitally delivered treatment for LBP had reduced pain at 3-month follow-up, and 58.50% (1517/2593) reported an MCIC in pain. Our findings suggest that digital treatment programs can reduce pain at clinically important levels for people with high adherence to treatment but that those with such severe LBP problems that they wish to undergo surgery may benefit from additional support.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05226156; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05226156.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients' needs more comprehensively.MethodsThis parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes.Results201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period (P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI - 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions.ConclusionsParticipants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN:Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS:Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES:Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS:Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS:We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) leads to considerable impairment of quality of life worldwide and is often accompanied by psychosomatic symptoms.ObjectivesFirst, to assess the association between stress and chronic low back pain (CLBP) and its simultaneous appearance with fatigue and depression as a symptom triad. Second, to identify the most predictive stress-related pattern set for CLBP for a 1-year diagnosis.MethodsIn a 1-year observational study with four measurement points, a total of 140 volunteers (aged 18-45 years with intermittent pain) were recruited. The primary outcomes were pain [characteristic pain intensity (CPI), subjective pain disability (DISS)], fatigue, and depressive mood. Stress was assessed as chronic stress, perceived stress, effort reward imbalance, life events, and physiological markers [allostatic load index (ALI), hair cortisol concentration (HCC)]. Multiple linear regression models and selection procedures for model shrinkage and variable selection (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) were applied. Prediction accuracy was calculated by root mean squared error (RMSE) and receiver-operating characteristic curves.ResultsThere were 110 participants completed the baseline assessments (28.2 ± 7.5 years, 38.1% female), including HCC, and a further of 46 participants agreed to ALI laboratory measurements. Different stress types were associated with LBP, CLBP, fatigue, and depressive mood and its joint occurrence as a symptom triad at baseline; mainly social-related stress types were of relevance. Work-related stress, such as "excessive demands at work"[b = 0.51 (95%CI -0.23, 1.25), p = 0.18] played a role for upcoming chronic pain disability. "Social overload" [b = 0.45 (95%CI -0.06, 0.96), p = 0.080] and "over-commitment at work" [b = 0.28 (95%CI -0.39, 0.95), p = 0.42] were associated with an upcoming depressive mood within 1-year. Finally, seven psychometric (CPI: RMSE = 12.63; DISS: RMSE = 9.81) and five biomarkers (CPI: RMSE = 12.21; DISS: RMSE = 8.94) could be derived as the most predictive pattern set for a 1-year prediction of CLBP. The biomarker set showed an apparent area under the curve of 0.88 for CPI and 0.99 for DISS.ConclusionStress disrupts allostasis and favors the development of chronic pain, fatigue, and depression and the emergence of a "hypocortisolemic symptom triad," whereby the social-related stressors play a significant role. For translational medicine, a predictive pattern set could be derived which enables to diagnose the individuals at higher risk for the upcoming pain disorders and can be used in practice.