Response of Practicing Chiropractors during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Report.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained all levels of healthcare and it is not known how chiropractic practitioners have responded to this crisis. The purpose of this report is to describe responses by a sample of chiropractors during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a qualitative-constructivist design to understand chiropractic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, as described by the participants. A sample of chiropractic practitioners (doctors of chiropractic, chiropractors) from various international locations were invited to participate. Each described the public health response to COVID-19 in their location and the actions that they took in their chiropractic practices from April 20 through May 4, 2020. A summary report was created from their responses and common themes were identified. RESULTS: Eighteen chiropractic practitioners representing 17 locations and 11 countries participated. A variety of practice environments were represented in this sample, including, solo practice, mobile practice, private hospital, US Veterans Administration health care, worksite health center, and group practice. They reported that they recognized and abided by changing governmental regulations. They observed their patients experience increased stress and mental health concerns resulting from the pandemic. They adopted innovative strategies, such as telehealth, to do outreach, communicate with, and provide care for patients. They abided by national and World Health Organization recommendations and they adopted creative strategies to maintain connectivity with patients through a people-centered, integrated, and collaborative approach. CONCLUSION: Although the chiropractors in this sample practiced in different cities and countries, their compliance with local regulations, concern for staff and patient safety, and people-centered responses were consistent. This sample covers all 7 World Federation of Chiropractic regions (ie, African, Asian, Eastern Mediterranean, European, Latin American, North American, and Pacific) and provides insights into measures taken by chiropractors during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This information may assist the chiropractic profession as it prepares for different scenarios as new evidence about this disease evolves.

Clinical Outcomes in a Large Cohort of Musculoskeletal Patients Undergoing Chiropractic Care in the United Kingdom: A Comparison of Self- and National Health Service-Referred Routes.

OBJECTIVE: An innovative commissioning pathway has recently been introduced in the United Kingdom allowing chiropractic organizations to provide state-funded chiropractic care to patients through referral from National Health Service (NHS) primary care physicians. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of NHS and private patient groups presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to chiropractors under the Any Qualified Provider scheme and compare the clinical outcomes of these patients with those presenting privately. METHODS: A prospective cohort design monitoring patient outcomes comparing self-referring and NHS-referred patients undergoing chiropractic care was used. The primary outcome was the change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores. Within- and between-group analyses were performed to explore differences between outcomes with additional analysis of subgroups as categorized by the STarT back tool. RESULTS: A total of 8222 patients filled in baseline questionnaires. Of these, NHS patients (41%) had more adverse health measures at baseline and went on to receive more treatment. Using percent change in Bournemouth Questionnaire scores categorized at minimal clinical change cutoffs and adjusting for baseline differences, patients with low back and neck pain presenting privately are more likely to report improvement within 2 weeks and to have slightly better outcomes at 90 days. However, these patients were more likely to be attending consultations beyond 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the contention that chiropractic services as provided in United Kingdom are appropriate for both private and NHS-referred patient groups and should be considered when general medical physicians make decisions concerning referral routes and pain pathways for patients with musculoskeletal conditions.

Preliminary study into the components of the fear-avoidance model of LBP: change after an initial chiropractic visit and influence on outcome.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade the sub grouping of low back pain (LBP) patients according to their likely response to treatment has been identified as a research priority. As with other patient groups, researchers have found few if any factors from the case history or physical examination that are helpful in predicting the outcome of chiropractic care. However, in the wider LBP population psychosocial factors have been identified that are significantly prognostic. This study investigated changes in the components of the LBP fear-avoidance beliefs model in patients pre- and post- their initial visit with a chiropractor to determine if there was a relationship with outcomes at 1 month. METHODS: Seventy one new patients with lower back pain as their primary complaint presenting for chiropractic care to one of five clinics (nine chiropractors) completed questionnaires before their initial visit (pre-visit) and again just before their second appointment (post-visit). One month after the initial consultation, patient global impression of change (PGIC) scores were collected. Pre visit and post visit psychological domain scores were analysed for any association with outcomes at 1 month. RESULTS: Group mean scores for Fear Avoidance Beliefs (FAB), catastrophisation and self-efficacy were all improved significantly within a few days of a patient's initial chiropractic consultation. Pre-visit catastrophisation as well as post-visit scores for catastrophisation, back beliefs (inevitability) and self-efficacy were weakly correlated with patient's global impression of change (PGIC) at 1 month. However when the four assessed psychological variables were dichotomised about pre-visit group medians those individuals with 2 or more high variables post-visit had a substantially increased risk (OR 36.4 (95% CI 6.2-213.0) of poor recovery at 1 month. Seven percent of patients with 1 or fewer adverse psychological variables described poor benefit compared to 73% of those with 2 or more. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented suggest that catastrophisation, FAB and low self-efficacy could be potential barriers to early improvement during chiropractic care. In most patients presenting with higher psychological scores these were reduced within a few days of an initial chiropractic visit. Those patients who exhibited higher adverse psychology post-initial visit appear to have an increased risk of poor outcome at 1 month.