Chiropractic Care

The Association of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use and Health Care Expenditures for Back and Neck Problems

By Frank M. Painter|March 2, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Complementary and Alternative Medicine|

The Association of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use and Health Care Expenditures for Back and Neck Problems

SOURCE: Med Care. 2012 (Dec); 50 (12): 1029–1036

Brook I. Martin, PhD MPH, Mary M. Gerkovich, PhD, Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH, Karen J. Sherman, PhD, MPH, Daniel C. Cherkin, PhD, Bonnie K. Lind, PhD, Christine M. Goertz, DC, PhD, and William E. Lafferty, MD

Department of Orthopaedics,
The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth &
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center,
Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.

This first national study of CAM/chiropractic expenditures for spine conditions finds that neither adds to overall medical spending.From Page 23: A recent study of 12,036 records in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) investigated the costs of treating patients with low back and neck pain (Martin et al., 2012). The study estimated the expenditures for care among complementary and alternative medicine (chiropractic, homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, and massage) users relative to non-users. This study included a chiropractic-specific analysis of expenditures for chiropractic users versus non-users, as approximately 75% of all complementary and alternative medicine services were rendered by doctors of chiropractic.

Survey data were analyzed for the years 2002–2008. The analysis demonstrated that seeing a CAM/chiropractic provider did not add to overall medical spending. In fact, adjusted annual healthcare costs among chiropractic users were $424 lower for spine-related costs when compared to non-CAM users.

Additionally, those who used complementary and alternative providers, including doctors of chiropractic, had significantly lower hospitalization expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems.

RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services.

MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics.

RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4,306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1,470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page

and our

Chronic Neck Pain and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Psychological and Behavioral Differences Between Low Back Pain Populations

By Frank M. Painter|February 25, 2017|Biopsychosocial Model, Chiropractic Care|

Psychological and Behavioral Differences Between Low Back Pain Populations: A Comparative Analysis of Chiropractic, Primary and Secondary Care Patients

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 (Oct 19); 16: 306

Andreas Eklund, Gunnar Bergström,
Lennart Bodin and Iben Axén

Karolinska Institutet,
Institute of Environmental Medicine,
Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research,
Nobels väg 13, S-171 77,
Stockholm, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Psychological, behavioral and social factors have long been considered important in the development of persistent pain. Little is known about how chiropractic low back pain (LBP) patients compare to other LBP patients in terms of psychological/behavioral characteristics.

METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the aim was to investigate patients with LBP as regards to psychosocial/behavioral characteristics by describing a chiropractic primary care population and comparing this sample to three other populations using the MPI-S instrument. Thus, four different samples were compared.

A: Four hundred eighty subjects from chiropractic primary care clinics.

B: One hundred twenty-eight subjects from a gainfully employed population (sick listed with high risk of developing chronicity).

C: Two hundred seventy-three subjects from a secondary care rehabilitation clinic.

D: Two hundred thirty-five subjects from secondary care clinics.

The Swedish version of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI-S) was used to collect data. Subjects were classified using a cluster analytic strategy into three pre-defined subgroups (named adaptive copers, dysfunctional and interpersonally distressed).

RESULTS: The data show statistically significant overall differences across samples for the subgroups based on psychological and behavioral characteristics. The cluster classifications placed (in terms of the proportions of the adaptive copers and dysfunctional subgroups) sample A between B and the two secondary care samples C and D.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Biopsychosocial Model Page

(more…)

0

A Systematic Review Comparing the Costs of Chiropractic Care to other Interventions for Spine Pain in the United States

By Frank M. Painter|February 24, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Cost-Effectiveness|

A Systematic Review Comparing the Costs of Chiropractic Care to other Interventions for
Spine Pain in the United States

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 (Oct 19) ~ FULL TEXT

Simon Dagenais, O’Dane Brady, Scott Haldeman and Pran Manga

Spine Research LLC,
540 Main Street #7,
Winchester, MA, 01890, USA.

BACKGROUND: Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining:

1. private health plans
2. workers’ compensation (WC) plans, and
3. clinical outcomes.

The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.

RESULTS: The search uncovered 1,276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain

By Frank M. Painter|February 22, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Low Back Pain|

A Comparison of Chiropractic Manipulation Methods and Usual Medical Care for Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: J Altern Complement Med. 2014 (May); 20 (5): A22–23

Michael Schneider, Mitchell Haas, Joel Stevans,
Ronald Glick, Doug Landsittel

University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to compare manual and mechanical methods of spinal manipulation (Activator) for patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain. These are the two most common methods of spinal manipulation used by chiropractors, but there is insufficient evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness against each other. Our secondary aim was to compare both methods with usual medical care.

Methods: In a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, we randomized 107 participants with acute and sub-acute low back pain to: 1) usual medical care; 2) manual side-posture manipulation; and 3) mechanical manipulation (Activator). The primary outcome was self-reported disability (Oswestry) at four weeks. Pain was rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Pain and disability scores were regressed on grouping variables adjusted for baseline covariates.

Results: Manual manipulation demonstrated a clinically important and statistically significant reduction of disability and pain compared to Activator (adjusted mean difference=7.9 and 1.3 points respectively, P<.05) and compared to usual medical care (7.0 and 1.8 points respectively, P<.05). There were no significant adjusted mean differences between Activator and usual medical care in disability and pain (0.9 and 0.5 points respectively, P>.05).

There are more articles like this @ our:

Low Back Pain and Chiropractic

(more…)

0

Glucose Metabolic Changes in the Brain and Muscles of Patients with Nonspecific Neck Pain Treated by Spinal Manipulation Therapy

By Frank M. Painter|February 11, 2017|Chiropractic Care|

Glucose Metabolic Changes in the Brain and Muscles of Patients with Nonspecific Neck Pain Treated by Spinal Manipulation Therapy: A [18F]FDG PET Study

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2017 (Jan 12); 2017: 4345703 ~ FULL TEXT

Akie Inami, Takeshi Ogura,
Shoichi Watanuki, Md. Mehedi Masud,
Katsuhiko Shibuya, Masayasu Miyake, et al.

Division of Cyclotron Nuclear Medicine,
Cyclotron and Radioisotope Center,
Tohoku University,
Sendai, Japan.

Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in brain and muscle glucose metabolism that are not yet known, using positron emission tomography with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG PET).

Methods. Twenty-one male volunteers were recruited for the present study. [18F]FDG PET scanning was performed twice on each subject: once after the spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) intervention (treatment condition) and once after resting (control condition). We performed the SMT intervention using an adjustment device. Glucose metabolism of the brain and skeletal muscles was measured and compared between the two conditions. In addition, we measured salivary amylase level as an index of autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity, as well as muscle tension and subjective pain intensity in each subject.

Results. Changes in brain activity after SMT included activation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, cerebellar vermis, and somatosensory association cortex and deactivation of the prefrontal cortex and temporal sites. Glucose uptake in skeletal muscles showed a trend toward decreased metabolism after SMT, although the difference was not significant. Other measurements indicated relaxation of cervical muscle tension, decrease in salivary amylase level (suppression of sympathetic nerve activity), and pain relief after SMT.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Neurology subsection

(more…)

0

Manipulation of Dysfunctional Spinal Joints Affects Sensorimotor Integration in the Prefrontal Cortex

By Frank M. Painter|January 11, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Neurology|

Manipulation of Dysfunctional Spinal Joints Affects Sensorimotor Integration in the Prefrontal Cortex: A Brain Source Localization Study

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Neural Plast. 2016 (Mar 7); 2016: 3704964 ~ FULL TEXT

Dina Lelic, Imran Khan Niazi, Kelly Holt, Mads Jochumsen, Kim Dremstrup, Paul Yielder, Bernadette Murphy, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, and Heidi Haavik

Mech-Sense,
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology,
Aalborg University Hospital,
9000 Aalborg, Denmark

Objectives. Studies have shown decreases in N30 somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) peak amplitudes following spinal manipulation (SM) of dysfunctional segments in subclinical pain (SCP) populations. This study sought to verify these findings and to investigate underlying brain sources that may be responsible for such changes.

Methods. Nineteen subclinical pain volunteers attended two experimental sessions, SM and control in random order. SEPs from 62-channel EEG cap were recorded following median nerve stimulation (1000 stimuli at 2.3 Hz) before and after either intervention. Peak-to-peak amplitude and latency analysis was completed for different SEPs peak. Dipolar models of underlying brain sources were built by using the brain electrical source analysis. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assessed differences in N30 amplitudes, dipole locations, and dipole strengths.

Results. SM decreased the N30 amplitude by 16.9 ± 31.3% (P = 0.02), while no differences were seen following the control intervention (P = 0.4). Brain source modeling revealed a 4-source model but only the prefrontal source showed reduced activity by 20.2 ± 12.2% (P = 0.03) following SM.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Neurology subsection

(more…)

0