Regional anesthesia training model for resource-limited settings: a prospective single-center observational study with pre-post evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Educational initiatives are a sustainable means to address provider shortages in resource-limited settings (RLS), yet few regional anesthesia curricula for RLS have been described. We sought to design a reproducible training model for RLS called Global Regional Anesthesia Curricular Engagement (GRACE), implement GRACE at an RLS hospital in Ghana, and measure training and practice-based outcomes associated with GRACE implementation. METHODS: Fourteen of 15 physician anesthesiologists from the study location and three from an outside orthopedic specialty hospital consented to be trainees and trainers, respectively, for this prospective single-center observational study with pre-post evaluations. We conducted an initial needs assessment to determine current clinical practices, participants' learning preferences, and available resources. Needs assessment findings, expert panel recommendations, and investigator consensus were then used to generate a site-specific curriculum that was implemented during two 3-week periods. We evaluated trainee satisfaction and changes in knowledge, clinical skill, and peripheral nerve block (PNB) utilization using the Kirkpatrick method. RESULTS: The curriculum consisted of didactic lectures, simulations, and clinical instruction to teach ultrasound-guided PNB for limb injuries. Pre-post evaluations showed trainees were satisfied with GRACE, median knowledge examination score improved from 62.5% (15/24) to 91.7% (22/24) (p<0.001), clinical examination pass rate increased from 28.6% (4/14) to 85.7% (12/14) (p<0.01), and total PNB performed in 3 months grew from 48 to 118. CONCLUSIONS: GRACE applied in an RLS hospital led to the design, implementation, and measurement of a regional anesthesia curriculum tailored to institutional specifications that was associated with positive Kirkpatrick outcomes.

If I was more informed about what exactly they do: perceptions of Botswana district hospital healthcare providers about World Spine Care.

Background: In 2011, World Spine Care (WSC) opened their pilot clinic at the Botswana Mahalapye District Hospital (MDH) aiming to develop a low-cost model of evidence-based spine care for underserved communities. Providing sustainable, integrated, evidence-based care will require buy-in from local healthcare providers (HCPs) and the communities served. The purpose of this project was to understand how MDH HCPs perceive WSC. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive methodology to conduct individual, semi-structured interviews with MDH HCPs who had some familiarity about WSC services. Interviews were conducted in English, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We used an iterative coding process for thematic content analysis and interpretations were regularly reviewed by all co-authors. Results: In March 2017, interviews with 20 HCPs, from diverse disciplines with a range in years' experience at MDH, revealed three overlapping themes: knowledge about WSC and spinal related disorders, perceived role of WSC, and challenges for WSC integration. Participants who attended WSC conferences or self-referred for care were more informed and, generally, held positive perceptions. Participants lacked knowledge about managing spinal-related disorders, asserted hospital protocols did not meet patient needs, and perceived WSC is 'filling a gap' to manage these conditions. There were mixed perceptions about care received as WSC patients; some ultimately obtained relief, while others reported the treatment painful and unfamiliar, discharging themselves from care. Challenges to integrate WSC into the healthcare system were: lack of knowledge about scope of practice and unclear referral pathways; reversing the isolated care WSC provides by increasing collaboration between WSC and hospital staff; and, high turnover of WSC clinicians that undermines program sustainability. Conclusions: MDH healthcare providers had adequate general knowledge about World Spine Care and spinal-related disorders, but did not understand the WSC scope of practice nor referral pathways to and from providers. Participants advocated for greater collaboration between WSC and hospital staff to increase acceptance and integration to deliver spine care services and foster wider adoption of the WSC model, particularly if WSC expands services across Botswana. Future efforts that incorporate interviews with patients and government officials also can provide valuable perspectives to achieve sustainable, integrated, evidence-based spine care.

Interprofessional Attitudes and Interdisciplinary Practices for Older Adults With Back Pain Among Doctors of Chiropractic: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on attitudes of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) toward integrative medicine and their self-reported interdisciplinary practices for older adults with back pain. METHODS: This descriptive survey was conducted with licensed DCs in a Midwestern community in the United States. Respondents completed a 53-item postal survey of demographics, practice characteristics, referral and co-management patterns, attitudes toward interdisciplinary practice, and the Integrative Medicine-30 Questionnaire (IM-30). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven DCs completed the survey (29% response). Geriatric-focused chiropractic practices were uncommon (<15%), although 56% reported that 25% to 49% of the patients treated each week were older adults. Respondents had a moderate orientation toward collaboration with other health care providers (IM-30 mean [standard deviation] 61.3 [11.5]). The IM-30 subscales placed DCs high on measures of integrative medicine safety; moderate on patient-centeredness, openness to working with other providers, and referral readiness; and low on learning from alternative paradigms. Doctors of chiropractic most referred older patients to neurologists, family physicians, massage therapists, orthopedists, and other chiropractors. Doctors of chiropractic reported the highest levels of co-management with family physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists. Most DCs (92%) were confident in their own ability to manage back pain in older adults, with modest confidence expressed for treatments from professionals using manual therapies. Most (77%) responded that older patients would experience the most improvement if DCs collaborated with another chiropractor, rather than with medical professionals. CONCLUSION: Doctors of chiropractic in one geographic community are moderately oriented toward interprofessional practice with other health care providers for older adults with back pain. Follow-up studies in representative national and international samples are recommended.

Interdisciplinary Practice Models for Older Adults With Back Pain: A Qualitative Evaluation.

Purpose: Older adults seek health care for low back pain from multiple providers who may not coordinate their treatments. This study evaluated the perceived feasibility of a patient-centered practice model for back pain, including facilitators for interprofessional collaboration between family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic. Design and Methods: This qualitative evaluation was a component of a randomized controlled trial of 3 interdisciplinary models for back pain management: usual medical care; concurrent medical and chiropractic care; and collaborative medical and chiropractic care with interprofessional education, clinical record exchange, and team-based case management. Data collection included clinician interviews, chart abstractions, and fieldnotes analyzed with qualitative content analysis. An organizational-level framework for dissemination of health care interventions identified norms/attitudes, organizational structures and processes, resources, networks-linkages, and change agents that supported model implementation. Results: Clinicians interviewed included 13 family medicine residents and 6 chiropractors. Clinicians were receptive to interprofessional education, noting the experience introduced them to new colleagues and the treatment approaches of the cooperating profession. Clinicians exchanged high volumes of clinical records, but found the logistics cumbersome. Team-based case management enhanced information flow, social support, and interaction between individual patients and the collaborating providers. Older patients were viewed positively as change agents for interprofessional collaboration between these provider groups. Implications: Family medicine residents and doctors of chiropractic viewed collaborative care as a useful practice model for older adults with back pain. Health care organizations adopting medical and chiropractic collaboration can tailor this general model to their specific setting to support implementation.

Patient-centered professional practice models for managing low back pain in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a debilitating condition for older adults, who may seek healthcare from multiple providers. Few studies have evaluated impacts of different healthcare delivery models on back pain outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of older adults receiving back pain treatment under 3 professional practice models that included primary medical care with or without chiropractic care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with 131 community-dwelling, ambulatory older adults with subacute or chronic low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of individualized primary medical care (Medical Care), concurrent medical and chiropractic care (Dual Care), or medical and chiropractic care with enhanced interprofessional collaboration (Shared Care). Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity rated on the numerical rating scale and back-related disability measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects regression models and general estimating equations. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, participants in all three treatment groups reported improvements in mean average low back pain intensity [Shared Care: 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.6; Dual Care: 3.0; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.8; Medical Care: 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2)] and back-related disability (Shared Care: 2.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 4.0; Dual Care: 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7; Medical Care: 1.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8). No statistically significant differences were noted between the three groups on the primary measures. Participants in both models that included chiropractic reported significantly better perceived low back pain improvement, overall health and quality of life, and greater satisfaction with healthcare services than patients who received medical care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Professional practice models that included primary care and chiropractic care led to modest improvements in low back pain intensity and disability for older adults, with chiropractic-inclusive models resulting in better perceived improvement and patient satisfaction over the primary care model alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01312233 , 4 March 2011.

Anesthesia Capacity in Ghana: A Teaching Hospital's Resources, and the National Workforce and Education.

BACKGROUND: Quality anesthetic care is lacking in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Global health leaders call for perioperative capacity reports in limited-resource settings to guide improved health care initiatives. We describe a teaching hospital's resources and the national workforce and education in this LMIC capacity report. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) in Kumasi, Ghana, during 4 weeks in August 2016. Teaching hospital data were generated from observations of hospital facilities and patient care, review of archival records, and interviews with KATH personnel. National data were obtained from interviews with KATH personnel, correspondence with Ghana's anesthesia society, and review of public records. RESULTS: The practice of anesthesia at KATH incorporated preanesthesia clinics, intraoperative management, and critical care. However, there were not enough physicians to consistently supervise care, especially in postanesthesia care units (PACUs) and the critical care unit (CCU). Clean water and electricity were usually reliable in all 16 operating rooms (ORs) and throughout the hospital. Equipment and drugs were inventoried in detail. While much basic infrastructure, equipment, and medications were present in ORs, patient safety was hindered by hospital-wide oxygen supply failures and shortage of vital signs monitors and working ventilators in PACUs and the CCU. In 2015, there were 10,319 anesthetics administered, with obstetric and gynecologic, general, and orthopedic procedures comprising 62% of surgeries. From 2011 to 2015, all-cause perioperative mortality rate in ORs and PACUs was 0.65% or 1 death per 154 anesthetics, with 99% of deaths occurring in PACUs. Workforce and education data at KATH revealed 10 anesthesia attending physicians, 61 nurse anesthetists (NAs), and 7 anesthesia resident physicians in training. At the national level, 70 anesthesia attending physicians and 565 NAs cared for Ghana's population of 27 million. Providers were heavily concentrated in urban areas, and NAs frequently practiced independently. Two teaching hospitals provided accredited postgraduate training modeled after European curricula to 22 anesthesia resident physicians. CONCLUSIONS: While important limitations to capacity exist in Ghana, the overall situation is good compared to other LMICs. Many of the challenges encountered resulted from insufficient PACU and CCU provisions and few providers. Inadequate outcomes reporting made analysis and resolution of problem areas difficult. While many shortcomings stemmed from limited funding, strengthening physician commitment to overseeing care, ensuring oxygen supplies are uninterrupted, keeping ventilators in working order, and making vital signs monitors ubiquitously available are feasible ways to increase patient safety with the tools currently in place.

What do patients value about spinal manipulation and home exercise for back-related leg pain? A qualitative study within a controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient perceptions may influence the effectiveness and utilization of healthcare interventions, particularly for complex health conditions such as sciatica or back-related leg pain (BRLP). OBJECTIVES: To explore BRLP patients' perceptions of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and home exercise with advice (HEA). DESIGN: Qualitative study in a controlled clinical trial. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews conducted after 12 weeks of treatment asked participants about satisfaction with care and whether treatment was worthwhile. An interdisciplinary research team conducted content analysis using qualitative data analysis software to identify and summarize themes. RESULTS: Of 192 trial participants, 174 (91%) completed interviews (66% female, age 57.0 ± 11.5 years). Participants identified interactions with providers and staff, perceived treatment effects, and information as key contributors to both their satisfaction and the worthwhile nature of treatment. HEA was liked for its convenience and ability to foster an exercise habit. SMT was liked for specific aspects of the modality (e.g. manipulation, stretching) and provider competency. Most participants reported no dislikes for SMT or HEA, but some noted the dose/time commitment for SMT and discipline of HEA as least liked aspects of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of patient-provider interactions, perceived treatment effects, and information sharing influenced BRLP patients' satisfaction with care. Qualitative research describing patients' preferences can facilitate translation of study findings into practice and allow clinicians to tailor treatments to facilitate compliance and satisfaction with care.

Chiropractor interaction and treatment equivalence in a pilot randomized controlled trial: an observational analysis of clinical encounter video-recordings.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a complex health intervention composed of both treatment effects and non-specific, or placebo, effects. While doctor-patient interactions are a component of the non-specific effects of chiropractic, these effects are not evaluated in most clinical trials. This study aimed to: 1) develop an instrument to assess practitioner-patient interactions; 2) determine the equivalence of a chiropractor's verbal interactions and treatment delivery for participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic groups; and 3) describe the perceptions of a treatment-masked evaluator and study participants regarding treatment group assignment. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of digital video-recordings derived from study visits conducted during a pilot randomized trial of conservative therapies for temporomandibular pain. A theory-based, iterative process developed the 13-item Chiropractor Interaction and Treatment Equivalence Instrument. A trained evaluator masked to treatment assignment coded video-recordings of clinical encounters between one chiropractor and multiple visits of 26 participants allocated to active or sham chiropractic treatment groups. Non-parametric statistics were calculated. RESULTS: The trial ran from January 2010 to October 2011. We analyzed 111 complete video-recordings (54 active, 57 sham). Chiropractor interactions differed between the treatment groups in 7 categories. Active participants received more interactions with clinical information (8 vs. 4) or explanations (3.5 vs. 1) than sham participants within the therapeutic domain. Active participants received more directions (63 vs. 58) and adjusting instrument thrusts (41.5 vs. 23) in the procedural domain and more optimistic (2.5 vs. 0) or neutral (7.5 vs. 5) outcome statements in the treatment effectiveness domain. Active participants recorded longer visit durations (13.5 vs. 10 minutes). The evaluator correctly identified 61% of active care video-recordings as active treatments but categorized only 31% of the sham treatments correctly. Following the first treatment, 82% of active and 11% of sham participants correctly identified their treatment group. At 2-months, 93% of active and 42% of sham participants correctly identified their group assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show the feasibility of evaluating doctor-patient interactions in chiropractic clinical trials using video-recordings and standardized instrumentation. Clinical trial design and clinician training protocols should improve and assess the equivalence of doctor-patient interactions between treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01021306 on 24 November 2009.

Spinal manipulation and home exercise with advice for subacute and chronic back-related leg pain: a trial with adaptive allocation.

BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is often disabling and costly, and there is a paucity of research to guide its management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise and advice (HEA) compared with HEA alone reduces leg pain in the short and long term in adults with BRLP. DESIGN: Controlled pragmatic trial with allocation by minimization conducted from 2007 to 2011. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00494065). SETTING: 2 research centers (Minnesota and Iowa). PATIENTS: Persons aged 21 years or older with BRLP for least 4 weeks. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of SMT plus HEA or HEA alone. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was patient-rated BRLP at 12 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfaction, medication use, and general health status at 12 and 52 weeks. Blinded objective tests were done at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 192 enrolled patients, 191 (99%) provided follow-up data at 12 weeks and 179 (93%) at 52 weeks. For leg pain, SMT plus HEA had a clinically important advantage over HEA (difference, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 2 to 19]; P=0.008) at 12 weeks but not at 52 weeks (difference, 7 percentage points [CI, -2 to 15]; P=0.146). Nearly all secondary outcomes improved more with SMT plus HEA at 12 weeks, but only global improvement, satisfaction, and medication use had sustained improvements at 52 weeks. No serious treatment-related adverse events or deaths occurred. LIMITATION: Patients and providers could not be blinded. CONCLUSION: For patients with BRLP, SMT plus HEA was more effective than HEA alone after 12 weeks, but the benefit was sustained only for some secondary outcomes at 52 weeks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

A pilot study of a chiropractic intervention for management of chronic myofascial temporomandibular disorder.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular pain has multiple etiologies and a range of therapeutic options. In this pilot study, the authors assessed the feasibility of conducting a larger trial to evaluate chiropractic treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). METHODS: The authors assigned 80 participants randomly into one of the following four groups, all of which included a comprehensive self-care program: reversible interocclusal splint therapy (RIST), Activator Method Chiropractic Technique (AMCT) (Activator Methods International, Phoenix), sham AMCT and self-care only. They made assessments at baseline and at month 2 and month 6, including use of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. RESULTS: The authors screened 721 potential participants and enrolled 80 people; 52 participants completed the six-month assessment. The adjusted mean change in current pain over six months, as assessed on the 11-point numerical rating scale, was 2.0 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.1-3.0) for RIST, 1.7 (0.9-2.5) for self-care only, 1.5 (0.7-2.4) for AMCT and 1.6 (0.7-2.5) for sham AMCT. The authors also assessed bothersomeness and functionality. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found the study design and methodology to be manageable. They gained substantial knowledge to aid in conducting a larger study. AMCT, RIST and self-care should be evaluated in a future comparative effectiveness study. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: This pilot study was a necessary step to prepare for a larger study that will provide clinicians with information that should be helpful when discussing treatment options for patients with TMD.

Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: While older adults may seek care for low back pain (LBP) from both medical doctors (MDs) and doctors of chiropractic (DCs), co-management between these providers is uncommon. The purposes of this study were to describe the preferences of older adults for LBP co-management by MDs and DCs and to identify their concerns for receiving care under such a treatment model. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups with 48 older adults who received LBP care in the past year. Interviews explored participants' care seeking experiences, co-management preferences, and perceived challenges to successful implementation of a MD-DC co-management model. We analyzed the qualitative data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Older adults considered LBP co-management by MDs and DCs a positive approach as the professions have complementary strengths. Participants wanted providers who worked in a co-management model to talk openly and honestly about LBP, offer clear and consistent recommendations about treatment, and provide individualized care. Facilitators of MD-DC co-management included collegial relationships between providers, arrangements between doctors to support interdisciplinary referral, computer systems that allowed exchange of health information between clinics, and practice settings where providers worked in one location. Perceived barriers to the co-management of LBP included the financial costs associated with receiving care from multiple providers concurrently, duplication of tests or imaging, scheduling and transportation problems, and potential side effects of medication and chiropractic care. A few participants expressed concern that some providers would not support a patient-preferred co-managed care model. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in receiving LBP treatment co-managed by MDs and DCs. Older adults considered patient-centered communication, collegial interdisciplinary interactions between these providers, and administrative supports such as scheduling systems and health record sharing as key components for successful LBP co-management.

Collaborative Care for Older Adults with low back pain by family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic (COCOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition that affects the health and quality of life of older adults. Older people often consult primary care physicians about back pain, with many also receiving concurrent care from complementary and alternative medicine providers, most commonly doctors of chiropractic. However, a collaborative model of treatment coordination between these two provider groups has yet to be tested. The primary aim of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults Clinical Trial is to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a patient-centered, collaborative care model with family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic for the treatment of low back pain in older adults. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial will enroll 120 participants, age 65 years or older with subacute or chronic low back pain lasting at least one month, from a community-based sample in the Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois, USA. Eligible participants are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 12 weeks of medical care, concurrent medical and chiropractic care, or collaborative medical and chiropractic care. Primary outcomes are self-rated back pain and disability. Secondary outcomes include general and functional health status, symptom bothersomeness, expectations for treatment effectiveness and improvement, fear avoidance behaviors, depression, anxiety, satisfaction, medication use and health care utilization. Treatment safety and adverse events also are monitored. Participant-rated outcome measures are collected via self-reported questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews at baseline, and at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks post-randomization. Provider-rated expectations for treatment effectiveness and participant improvement also are evaluated. Process outcomes are assessed through qualitative interviews with study participants and research clinicians, chart audits of progress notes and content analysis of clinical trial notes. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial uses a mixed method approach to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, feasibility, and participant and provider perceptions of collaborative care between medical doctors and doctors of chiropractic in the treatment of older adults with low back pain.

Adding chiropractic manipulative therapy to standard medical care for patients with acute low back pain: results of a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness study.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in pain levels and physical functioning in response to standard medical care (SMC) versus SMC plus chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) for the treatment of low back pain (LBP) among 18 to 35-year-old active-duty military personnel. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LBP is common, costly, and a significant cause of long-term sick leave and work loss. Many different interventions are available, but there exists no consensus on the best approach. One intervention often used is manipulative therapy. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials demonstrates that manipulative therapy may be as effective as other conservative treatments of LBP, but its appropriate role in the healthcare delivery system has not been established. METHODS: Prospective, 2-arm randomized controlled trial pilot study comparing SMC plus CMT with only SMC. The primary outcome measures were changes in back-related pain on the numerical rating scale and physical functioning at 4 weeks on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and back pain functional scale (BPFS). RESULTS: Mean Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores decreased in both groups during the course of the study, but adjusted mean scores were significantly better in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). Mean numerical rating scale pain scores were also significantly better in the group that received CMT. Adjusted mean back pain functional scale scores were significantly higher (improved) in the SMC plus CMT group than in the SMC group at both week 2 (P < 0.001) and week 4 (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The results of this trial suggest that CMT in conjunction with SMC offers a significant advantage for decreasing pain and improving physical functioning when compared with only standard care, for men and women between 18 and 35 years of age with acute LBP.

International web survey of chiropractic students about evidence-based practice: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Positive attitude toward evidence-based practice (EBP) principles in healthcare education may be one of the first steps for motivating a healthcare professional student to later apply EBP principles in clinical decision-making. The objectives for this project were to pilot an international web-based survey of chiropractic students and to describe student attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge about EBP principles. METHODS: We used SurveyMonkey™ to develop our survey based on an existing questionnaire used to measure basic knowledge, skills and beliefs about EBP among allied healthcare professionals and CAM practitioners. We invited 26 chiropractic educational institutions teaching in English and accredited by official organizations to participate. Academic officials and registrars at participating institutions forwarded an invitation email and two reminders to students between July and September 2010. The invitation contained a link to the 38-item web-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed for analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen institutions from Australia, Canada, US, Denmark and New Zealand participated. Among an estimated 7,142 student recipients of invitation letters, 674 participated in the survey for an estimated response rate of 9.4%. Most respondents reported having access to medical/healthcare literature through the internet, but only 11% read literature every week and 21% did not read literature at all. Respondents generally agreed that the use of research evidence in chiropractic was important. Although 76% of respondents found it easy to understand research evidence and 81% had some level of confidence assessing the general worth of research articles, 71% felt they needed more training in EBP to be able to apply evidence in chiropractic care. Respondents without previous training in research methods had lower confidence in assessing published papers. While more than 60% marked the correct answer for two knowledge items, the mean number of correct answers to the five knowledge questions was 1.3 (SD 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Although it is feasible to conduct an international web survey of chiropractic students, significant stakeholder participation is important to improve response rates. Students had relatively positive attitudes toward EBP. However, participants felt they needed more training in EBP and based on the knowledge questions they may need further training about basic research concepts.

Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain. DISCUSSION: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important patient-oriented and objective biomechanical outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494065.

Practice patterns of doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing in popularity, especially within the pediatric population. Research on CAM practitioners and their specialties, such as pediatrics, is lacking. Within the chiropractic profession, pediatrics is one of the most recently established post-graduate specialty programs. This paper describes the demographic and practice characteristics of doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate. METHODS: 218 chiropractors with a pediatric diplomate were invited to complete our survey using either web-based or mailed paper survey methods. Practitioner demographics, practice characteristics, treatment procedures, referral patterns, and patient characteristics were queried with a survey created with the online survey tool, SurveyMonkey. RESULTS: A total of 135 chiropractors responded (62.2% response rate); they were predominantly female (74%) and white (93%). Techniques most commonly used were Diversified, Activator, and Thompson with the addition of cranial and extremity manipulation to their chiropractic treatments. Adjunctive therapies commonly provided to patients included recommendations for activities of daily living, corrective or therapeutic exercise, ice pack\cryotherapy, and nutritional counseling. Thirty eight percent of respondents' patients were private pay and 23% had private insurance that was not managed care. Pediatrics represented 31% of the survey respondents' patients. Chiropractors also reported 63% of their work time devoted to direct patient care. Health conditions reportedly treated within the pediatric population included back or neck pain, asthma, birth trauma, colic, constipation, ear infection, head or chest cold, and upper respiratory infections. Referrals made to or from these chiropractors were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: This mixed mode survey identified similarities and differences between doctors of chiropractic with a pediatric diplomate to other surveys of doctors of chiropractic, CAM professionals, and pediatric healthcare providers. The pediatric diplomate certificate was established in 1993 and provides didactic education over a 2 to 3 year span. The results of this study can be used for historical information as this specialty continues to grow.

A randomized controlled trial comparing 2 types of spinal manipulation and minimal conservative medical care for adults 55 years and older with subacute or chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: Chiropractic care is used by many older patients for low back pain (LBP), but there are no published results of randomized trials examining spinal manipulation (SM) for older adults. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 2 biomechanically distinct forms of SM and minimal conservative medical care (MCMC) for participants at least 55 years old with subacute or chronic nonradicular LBP. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was low back-related disability assessed with the 24-item Roland Morris Disability questionnaire at 3, 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Participants were randomly allocated to 6 weeks of care including 12 visits of either high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA)-SM, low-velocity, variable-amplitude (LVVA)-SM, or 3 visits of MCMC. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants (105 women and 135 men) ages 63.1 +/- 6.7 years without significant comorbidities. Adjusted mean Roland Morris Disability change scores (95% confidence intervals) from baseline to the end of active care were 2.9 (2.2, 3.6) and 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) in the LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM groups, respectively, and 1.6 (0.5, 2.8) in the MCMC group. There were no significant differences between LVVA-SM and HVLA-SM at any of the end points. The LVVA-SM group had significant improvements in mean functional status ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 points over the MCMC group. There were no serious adverse events associated with any of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically distinct forms of SM did not lead to different outcomes in older LBP patients and both SM procedures were associated with small yet clinically important changes in functional status by the end of treatment for this relatively healthy older population. Participants who received either form of SM had improvements on average in functional status ranging from 1 to 2.2 over those who received MCMC. From an evidence-based care perspective, patient preference and clinical experience should drive how clinicians and patients make the SM procedure decision for this patient population.

Recruitment and enrollment for the simultaneous conduct of 2 randomized controlled trials for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain at a CAM research center.

OBJECTIVE: To describe recruitment and enrollment experiences of 2 low back pain (LBP) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Descriptive report. SETTING: Chiropractic research center in the midwest United States that is not a fee-for-service clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Both trials enrolled participants with subacute or chronic LBP without neurologic signs who had not received spinal manipulative care during the previous month. For study 1 we screened 1940 potential participants to enroll 192 participants (89 women and 103 men), mean age 40.0 +/- 9.4 years (range, 21-54 years). For study 2 we screened 1849 potential participants to enroll 240 participants (105 women and 135 men) at least 55 years old (mean, 63.1 +/- 6.7 years). INTERVENTIONS: Study 1 randomly assigned participants to 2 weeks of 2 different chiropractic techniques or a wait list control group. Study 2 randomly assigned participants to 6 weeks of 2 different chiropractic techniques or medical care consisting of 3 provider visits for medications. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment source costs and yield, and baseline characteristics of enrolled versus nonparticipants were recorded. RESULTS: We conducted 3789 telephone screens for both trials to enroll 432 (11%) participants, at a cost in excess of $156,000 for recruitment efforts. The cost per call for all callers averaged $41, ranging from $4 to $300 based on recruitment method; for enrolled participants, the cost per call was $361, ranging from $33 to $750. Direct mail efforts accounted for 62% of all callers, 57% for enrolled participants, and had the second lowest cost per call for recruitment efforts. CONCLUSIONS: It is important that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research can be successfully conducted at CAM institutions. However, the costs associated with recruitment efforts for studies conducted at CAM institutions may be higher than expected and many self-identified participants are users of the CAM therapy. Therefore, strategies for efficient recruitment methods and targeting nonusers of CAM therapies should be developed early for CAM trials.

A feasibility study assessing manual therapies to different regions of the spine for patients with subacute or chronic neck pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to develop and test protocols for a randomized clinical trial of a combined therapeutic approach (thoracic spine and sacroiliac joint high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation [HVLA SM] + cervical spine postisometric relaxation) and cervical spine HVLA SM for patients with subacute or chronic neck pain. METHODS: Patients were recruited in the Quad Cities in Iowa and Illinois. After a baseline assessment visit, eligible patients were randomly assigned to cervical spine HVLA SM or to the combined therapeutic approach for 4 treatment visits over 2 weeks. Outcome assessments included the Neck Disability Index, visual analog scale, and posttreatment response questionnaire. Patient outcomes were not aggregated or compared by treatment group. RESULTS: It took approximately 8 months of planning, which included the development of forms and protocols, pretesting the forms, and training staff and clinicians in the standardized protocols. Twelve participants were screened, and 6 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to care over a 6-week period. All patients completed 5 visits. Five of 6 patients had an improvement on the Neck Disability Index. On the visual analog scale, 2 patients improved at 2 weeks, whereas the other 4 got worse. Five patients completed the posttreatment response questionnaire; 2 of the 5 indicated they experienced discomfort or an unpleasant reaction from the study treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a successful feasibility randomized clinical trial requires considerable planning, development and pretesting of the forms and protocols, and training clinicians and staff for standardized protocols. Patients were willing to be randomized, follow treatment protocols, complete baseline and outcome assessments, and return 83% of the follow-up questionnaires.