Management of Back Pain-related Disorders in a Community With Limited Access to Health Care Services: A Description of Integration of Chiropractors as Service Providers.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a chiropractic service for back pain patients integrated within a publicly funded, multidisciplinary, primary care community health center in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients consulting for back pain of any duration were referred by their medical doctor or nurse practitioner for chiropractic treatment at the community health center. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and at discharge from the service. Data were collected prospectively on consecutive patients between January 2014 and January 2016. RESULTS: Questionnaire data were obtained from 93 patients. The mean age of the sample was 49.0 ± 16.27 years, and 66% were unemployed. More than three-quarters (77%) had had their back pain for more than a month, and 68% described it as constant. According to the Bournemouth Questionnaire, Bothersomeness, and global improvement scales, a majority (63%, 74%, and 93%, respectively) reported improvement at discharge, and most (82%) reported a significant reduction in pain medication. More than three-quarters (77%) did not visit their primary care provider while under chiropractic care, and almost all (93%) were satisfied with the service. According to the EuroQol 5 Domain questionnaire, more than one-third of patients (39%) also reported improvement in their general health state at discharge. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an integrated chiropractic service was associated with high levels of improvement and patient satisfaction in a sample of patients of low socioeconomic status with subacute and chronic back pain.

Perceptions of the quality of the therapeutic alliance in chiropractic care in The Netherlands: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Research in various medical fields demonstrates a consistent and positive association between clinical outcomes and the quality of the therapeutic alliance between the patient and clinician. The aim of this study was to explore how well chiropractors and their patients in The Netherlands perceive the quality of their working relationship. METHODS: A nationwide survey of chiropractors and their patients was conducted in The Netherlands, using a validated Dutch translation of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAV-12). Data were collected over a 5-week period in September-October 2014. Both patients and chiropractors were requested to reflect on 12 statements about to how well they perceived their collaboration in reaching consensus on treatment goals and treatment strategies, and how well they perceived the existence of an affective bond in their working relationship. A 5-point Likert scale was used to answer each question. Higher ratings reflected a more positive perception of the therapeutic alliance. Furthermore, levels of agreement between patients' and chiropractors' perceptions of the quality of their therapeutic alliance were determined. RESULTS: In total, 207 working relationships between patients and their chiropractor were analysed. The quality of the therapeutic alliance was perceived as being very positive for both patients (n = 183, mean 49.14 ± 7.12) and chiropractors (n = 202, mean 50.48 ± 4.97). There was no difference in patients' perceptions whether treated by a male or female chiropractor, nor in relation to the chiropractor's years of experience. Nevertheless, poor agreement was found between perceptions of patients and chiropractors in the same relationship (ICC = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Both patients and chiropractors perceived the quality of the therapeutic alliance as being very positive. Despite these positive results, patient and chiropractor pairs perceived the level of collaboration in order to reach agreement on treatment goals and strategies and the quality of their affective bond very differently. Clinically, these results suggest that chiropractors should, during the course of treatment, continue to collaborate with their patient and frequently verify whether their patient continues to agree with the treatment goals and treatment plan applied to further develop, improve and maintain a positive therapeutic alliance.

Increasing research capacity in the chiropractic profession: A case study and evaluation of an innovative research program in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: The subject of research methods is not commonly covered in continuing professional development (CPD) courses in spite of its emphasis in undergraduate education. This initiative aimed to develop postgraduate research competency and recruit chiropractors to musculoskeletal research. METHODS: The program was delivered as a university-based program with 20 credits over seven contact weekends covering topics of evidence-based practice, research methods, statistics, ethics, resources, and funding. Students were assessed through assignments showing competency in critical literature review, case report writing, and production of a research protocol as the final assessment. Non-student participation for CPD points was possible. A student evaluation survey was completed after the end of the academic year. RESULTS: There were 26 participants: 16 as students handing in assignments, 10 as non-student participants for up to 94 CPD points. Three submitted a final protocol and two registered at a university PhD program. A network of research clinics was established for data collection for future multicenter studies. CONCLUSIONS: The program was well received by the participants and gave them the tools and resources to perform research. The two-level attendance system afforded a basis for setting up a network of research clinics with a fundamental understanding of optimal data collection. This initiative has shown that research skills can be revisited through CPD programs as part of evidence-based lifelong learning.

Efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy on infant colic: a pragmatic single-blind, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy for infants with unexplained crying behavior and if there was any effect of parental reporting bias. METHODS: Infants with unexplained persistent crying (infant colic) were recruited between October 2007 and November 2009 at a chiropractic teaching clinic in the United Kingdom. Infants younger than 8 weeks were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: (i) infant treated, parent aware; (ii) infant treated, parent unaware; and (iii) infant not treated, parent unaware. The primary outcome was a daily crying diary completed by parents over a period of 10 days. Treatments were pragmatic, individualized to examination findings, and consisted of chiropractic manual therapy of the spine. Analysis of covariance was used to investigate differences between groups. RESULTS: One hundred four patients were randomized. In parents blinded to treatment allocation, using 2 or less hours of crying per day to determine a clinically significant improvement in crying time, the increased odds of improvement in treated infants compared with those not receiving treatment were statistically significant at day 8 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 8.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-45.0) and at day 10 (adjusted OR, 11.8; 95% CI, 2.1-68.3). The number needed to treat was 3. In contrast, the odds of improvement in treated infants were not significantly different in blinded compared with nonblinded parents (adjusted ORs, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.2-2.0] and 0.5 [95% CI, 0.1-1.6] at days 8 and 10, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, chiropractic manual therapy improved crying behavior in infants with colic. The findings showed that knowledge of treatment by the parent did not appear to contribute to the observed treatment effects in this study. Thus, it is unlikely that observed treatment effect is due to bias on the part of the reporting parent.

Prognostic factors for short-term improvement in acute and persistent musculoskeletal pain consulters in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Given the costs associated with the management of musculoskeletal pain in primary care, predicting the course of these conditions remains a research priority. Much of the research into prognostic indicators however considers musculoskeletal conditions in terms of single pain sites whereas in reality, many patients present with pain in more than one site. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors for early improvement in primary care consulters with acute and persistent musculoskeletal conditions across a range of pain sites. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a new episode of musculoskeletal pain completed self-report questionnaires at baseline, and then again at the 4/5th treatment visit, and if they were still consulting, at the 10th visit. The outcome was defined as patient self-report improvement sufficient to make a meaningful difference. Independent predictors of outcome were identified using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Acute (<7 weeks) patients, on average, had more severe conditions in terms of pain, disability, anxiety and work fear-avoidance behaviour than patients with persistent (≥7 weeks) pain, but were more likely to be better by the 4/5th visit. Several variables at baseline were associated with improvement at the 4/5th visit, but the predictive models were weak and unable to discriminate between patients who were improved and those who were not. In contrast, it was possible to elicit a predictive model for improvement later on at the 10th visit, but only in patients with persistent pain. Being employed, reporting a decline in work fear-avoidance behaviour at the 4/5th visit, and being better by the 4/5th visit, were all independently associated with improvement. This model accounted for 34.3% (p < 0.001) of the variation in observed improvement, and had good discriminative ability (the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95%CI 0.73 to 0.86)) and approximate balance in correctly identifying improved and non-improved cases (79.0% and 68% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify baseline characteristics that predicted early outcome in musculoskeletal pain patients. However, early self-reported improvement and decline in work fear-avoidance behaviour as predictors of later improvement highlighted the importance of speedy recovery in persistent musculoskeletal pain consulters. Our findings reinforce the elusive nature of baseline predictors, and the need for more emphasis on early changes as prognostic predictors in musculoskeletal conditions.

Validity of weekly recall ratings of average pain intensity in neck pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: Ratings of usual pain over a period of 1 week are commonly used to rate a patient's usual level of pain intensity. This study investigated the validity of weekly recall pain ratings and biasing effects of pain levels on these ratings. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients presenting to a chiropractic outpatient clinic with nonspecific neck pain completed a 7-day diary rating their pain 4 times each day on an 11-point numerical rating scale. From these 28 ratings, the patients' "actual average" pain was computed. On day 8, patients were asked to rate their current pain, as well as recall their pain "on average," at its "worst," and at its "least" over the previous week. RESULTS: Recall of average pain over the previous week was shown to be a valid measure using ratings of actual pain as the criterion standard (Pearson r = 0.95). The error between actual and recall readings was random and consistent across all levels of actual pain. Patients were also able to accurately recall their pain at its worst (r = 0.93) and at its least (r = 0.92) over the preceding week. In regression analyses, there were no appreciable biasing effects on the recall of average pain of either current pain at the time of recall, or of pain at its worst or at its least during the recall period. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that recall ratings of pain intensity may be valid for use in clinical research and practice on patients with nonspecific neck pain.

Responsiveness of the Bournemouth questionnaire in determining minimal clinically important change in subgroups of low back pain patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective single cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of the Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) to distinguish between improved and nonimproved patients who present with either short (acute) or long (subacute/chronic) duration low back pain (LBP), and with either high or low baseline scores (severity). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent evidence suggests that the responsiveness of outcome measures used to determine clinical change is dependent on the chronicity and severity of the condition. METHODS: Data from 437 back patients undergoing chiropractic treatment were used for analysis. Patients completed the BQ before treatment and 4 weeks later. Patients also completed the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at follow-up. Responsiveness was determined by calculating Standardized Response Means (SRM) and by the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) with best cut-point analysis. The minimal clinically important change (MCIC) was calculated by the change score with the best balanced sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The responsiveness of the BQ at 4 weeks was dependent on both duration and severity of the condition. As expected, the responsiveness of the total BQ was greater in improved compared to nonimproved patients in the acute (SRM [95% confidence interval], 1.9 [1.7-2.0] and 1.2 [0.9-1.5], respectively), as well as in the subacute/chronic group (SRM, 1.7 [1.5-1.8] and 0.5 [0.3-0.7]), respectively. For the psychological domains, SRMs in the acute patients failed to distinguish improved from nonimproved patients (SRM [95% confidence interval], 1.3 [1.1-1.4] and 0.9 [0.5-1.2] for anxiety, and 0.9 [0.8-1.0] and 0.8 [0.5-1.2] for depression). In acute and subacute/chronic patients, the MCIC for the total BQ was 26 and 18 points, respectively. In patients with lower and higher BQ scores at baseline, the MCIC was 10 and 31 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The BQ can distinguish between improved and nonimproved LBP patients but the amount of change needed to achieve this is lower in more chronic patients and in individuals with less severe presentation at baseline.

Predictors for immediate and global responses to chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with nonspecific musculoskeletal disorders may vary in their response to treatment. This study set out to identify the predictors for either improvement or worsening in symptoms for which cervical spine manipulation is indicated. METHOD: A large prospective study recorded details on patients, their presenting symptoms, and type of treatment. At the end of the consultation, any immediate improvement or worsening in presenting symptoms was noted. At the follow-up visit, information was collected on the patients' self-reported improvement. RESULTS: Data were collected from 28,807 treatment consultations (in 19,722 patients) and 13,873 follow-up treatments. The presenting symptoms of "neck pain," "shoulder, arm pain," "reduced neck, shoulder, arm movement, stiffness," "headache," "upper, mid back pain," and "none or one presenting symptom" emerged in the final model as significant predictors for an immediate improvement. The presence of any 4 of these predictors raised the probability for an immediate improvement in presenting symptoms after treatment from 70% to approximately 95%. With regard to immediate worsening, "neck pain," "shoulder, arm pain, "headache," "numbness, tingling upper limbs," "upper, mid back pain," and "fainting, dizziness, light-headedness" emerged as predictors; and the presence of any 4 of these raised the probability for immediate worsening from 4.4% to approximately 12%. For global improvement, only 2 predictors were identified; but these did not enhance the postprediction probability. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first attempt to identify variables that can predict immediate outcomes in terms of improvement and worsening of presenting symptoms, and global improvement, after cervical spine manipulation. The predictor variables were strongest for immediate improvement.

Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective national survey. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of serious and relatively minor adverse events following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine by a sample of U.K. chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The risk of a serious adverse event following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is largely unknown. Estimates range from 1 in 200,000 to 1 in several million cervical spine manipulations. METHODS: We studied treatment outcomes obtained from 19,722 patients. Manipulation was defined as the application of a high-velocity/low-amplitude or mechanically assisted thrust to the cervical spine. Serious adverse events, defined as "referred to hospital A&E and/or severe onset/worsening of symptoms immediately after treatment and/or resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity," and minor adverse events reported by patients as a worsening of presenting symptoms or onset of new symptoms, were recorded immediately, and up to 7 days, after treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 28,807 treatment consultations and 50,276 cervical spine manipulations. There were no reports of serious adverse events. This translates to an estimated risk of a serious adverse event of, at worse approximately 1 per 10,000 treatment consultations immediately after cervical spine manipulation, approximately 2 per 10,000 treatment consultations up to 7 days after treatment and approximately 6 per 100,000 cervical spine manipulations. Minor side effects with a possible neurologic involvement were more common. The highest risk immediately after treatment was fainting/dizziness/light-headedness in, at worse approximately 16 per 1000 treatment consultations. Up to 7 days after treatment, these risks were headache in, at worse approximately 4 per 100, numbness/tingling in upper limbs in, at worse approximately 15 per 1000 and fainting/dizziness/light-headedness in, at worse approximately 13 per 1000 treatment consultations. CONCLUSION: Although minor side effects following cervical spine manipulation were relatively common, the risk of a serious adverse event, immediately or up to 7 days after treatment, was low to very low.

Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative sensitivity of a range of outcome measures used in evaluating treatment interventions in patients with neck pain and the magnitude of change scores on the neck Bournemouth Questionnaire and the cutoff score on the Patients' Global Impression of Change scale associated with clinically significant improvement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditionally, evaluation of treatment interventions using subjective outcome measures has been based on the statistical significance of the difference between group mean values. To be clinically meaningful, however, information is required from sensitive outcome measures on the proportion of patients undergoing a clinically important improvement and from this, the number needed to treat for a single patient to benefit. METHODS: Patients with nonspecific neck pain from a number of treatment centers completed a battery of self-report questionnaires, including the Bournemouth Questionnaire, before and after chiropractic treatment. After treatment, patients also completed a retrospective analysis of their overall improvement since the start of treatment (Patients' Global Impression of Change). The a priori definition of clinically significant improvement was defined as a Reliable Change Index on the Bournemouth Questionnaire of >1.96. RESULTS: The best cutoffs with a balance between the highest sensitivity and highest specificity in detecting clinical improvement were a score of 2 or less on the Patients' Global Impression of Change (11-point Numerical Rating Scale: 0 = much better, 5 = no change, and 10 = much worse) and a raw change score of three or more points on each of the seven 11-point Numerical Rating Scale subscales of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. For the total score of the Bournemouth Questionnaire, raw change scores of 13 or more points, percentage change scores of 36% or more, and individual effect sizes of 1.0 or more were all associated with clinically significant improvement. The sensitivity of the Bournemouth Questionnaire in terms of its effect size was comparable with that of pain intensity scales and the Neck Disability Index. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings will assist in the choice of outcome measures in trials on neck pain. The study also illustrates a methodologic framework for interpreting change scores in terms of clinical improvement, facilitating the process of making sense of research data in the clinical setting.

The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. II. Psychometric properties in neck pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: To modify an existing outcome measure (Bournemouth Questionnaire [BQ]) for use in patients with nonspecific neck pain and test its psychometric properties. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study in which the questionnaire was administered on 3 occasions (pretreatment, retest, and posttreatment). SETTING: Anglo-European College of Chiropractic outpatient clinic and 8 field chiropractic practices. METHOD: Seven core items relating to the biopsychosocial model of pain were included in the original questionnaire (back BQ). The wording of one of these items (disability in activities of daily living) was modified to include activities likely to be affected by neck pain. Testing of the neck BQ was carried out in 102 patients with nonspecific neck pain. RESULTS: The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency on 3 administrations (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87, 0.91, 0.92). All 7 items were retained on the basis that they each significantly contributed to the total score (item-corrected total score correlations >0.43) and to the instrument's responsiveness to clinical change (item change-corrected total change score correlations >0.42). The instrument was reliable in test-retest administrations in stable subjects (ICC = 0.65). The instrument demonstrated acceptable construct validity and longitudinal construct validity with established external measures. The treatment effect size of the instrument was found to be high (1.67). CONCLUSION: The neck BQ covers the salient dimensions of the biopsychosocial model of pain, is quick and easy to complete, and has been shown to be reliable, valid, and responsive to clinically significant change in patients with nonspecific neck pain. Its use as an outcome measure in clinical trials and outcomes research is recommended.

Chiropractors' attitudes to, and perceptions of, the impact of continuing professional education on clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: As with other health care professions, there is a need for chiropractors to maintain their clinical competencies through continuing professional education (CPE) and development (CPD). This study set out to evaluate chiropractors' attitudes to, and opinions of, current CPE provision, and their perceived needs for the future. In particular, their perceptions of the impact of CPE on clinical practice were assessed. DESIGN: A survey in which primary quantitative and secondary qualitative data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire concentrated on four areas: (i) attitudes to CPE; (ii) impact of current CPE on practice; (iii) modes of delivery most likely to change practice; and (iv) future learning needs from continuing education programmes. RESPONDENTS: A random sample of chiropractors registered with the British Chiropractic Association. RESULTS: Overall, chiropractors were positive to CPE and cognisant of the need to keep up to date. However, in spite of several benefits, chiropractors did not perceive current CPE to be instrumental in changing practice. As might be expected, chiropractors perceived clinical updates and hands-on practical workshops to be most effective in changing clinical practice. DISCUSSION: There is currently considerable debate surrounding the ability of CPE and CPD to actually make a difference to the way clinicians practice. This study describes a method of evaluating the impact of CPE/D in changing clinical practice from the viewpoint of the practitioners themselves.

Accuracy of recall of usual pain intensity in back pain patients.

Pain intensity ratings of 'usual' pain, or pain 'on average', are gaining in popularity since they are arguably a more realistic measure of a patient's pain status than the single snapshot of 'current' pain. An alternative to the 'actual average' of ratings obtained from multiple measures is the single rating of patients' recall of their 'usual' pain over a period of time, usually 1 week. The use of such a scale relies on the assumption that patients can accurately recall their 'usual' pain. Although accuracy of memory for pain has been investigated, most studies have failed to use appropriate statistical analyses for accuracy (validity). In this study, 200 back pain patients completed four daily recordings of pain intensity over 7 days. These were averaged to compute 'actual average' pain intensity. The next day, patients estimated their pain over the week at its 'least', 'worst' and 'on average' ('usual') as well as recording their 'current' pain intensity. Using the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) to compute accuracy, the single rating asking patients to estimate their pain 'on average' over the week was found to be an accurate measure of 'actual average' pain intensity (ICC=0.82) and more accurate than 'current' pain (ICC=0.66). Although some composite measures of single ratings gave more accurate estimates of 'actual average' pain, this was not considered sufficient advantage to advocate their use. The results of this study propose the single rating of pain 'on average' as a valid and practical measure of a patient's pain intensity over a period of 1 week.