Chiropractic Care

Association Between the Type of First Healthcare Provider

By Frank M. Painter|March 8, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Cost-Effectiveness|

Association Between the Type of First Healthcare Provider and the Duration of Financial Compensation for Occupational Back Pain

SOURCE: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2016 (Sep 17)

Marc-André Blanchette, Michèle Rivard, Clermont E. Dionne, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Ivan Steenstra

Public Health PhD Program,
School of Public Health,
University of Montreal,
Montreal, QC, Canada.

Objective To compare the duration of financial compensation and the occurrence of a second episode of compensation of workers with occupational back pain who first sought three types of healthcare providers.

Methods We analyzed data from a cohort of 5,511 workers who received compensation from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for back pain in 2005. Multivariable Cox models controlling for relevant covariables were performed to compare the duration of financial compensation for the patients of each of the three types of first healthcare providers. Logistic regression was used to compare the occurrence of a second episode of compensation over the 2-year follow-up period.

Results Compared with the workers who first saw a physician (reference), those who first saw a chiropractor experienced shorter first episodes of 100 % wage compensation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20 [1.10-1.31], P value < 0.001), and the workers who first saw a physiotherapist experienced a longer episode of 100 % compensation (adjusted HR = 0.84 [0.71-0.98], P value = 0.028) during the first 149 days of compensation. The odds of having a second episode of financial compensation were higher among the workers who first consulted a physiotherapist (OR = 1.49 [1.02-2.19], P value = 0.040) rather than a physician (reference).

There are more articles like this @ our:

Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

Early Predictors of Lumbar Spine Surgery

By Frank M. Painter|March 7, 2017|Chiropractic Care, Cost-Effectiveness|

Early Predictors of Lumbar Spine Surgery After Occupational Back Injury: Results From a Prospective Study of Workers in Washington State

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 (May 15); 38 (11): 953–964

Benjamin J. Keeney, PhD, Deborah Fulton-Kehoe, PhD, MPH, Judith A. Turner, PhD, Thomas M. Wickizer, PhD, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, PhD, and Gary M. Franklin, MD, MPH

Department of Orthopaedics,
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College,
Lebanon, NH 03756, USA.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify early predictors of lumbar spine surgery within 3 years after occupational back injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Back injuries are the most prevalent occupational injury in the United States. Few prospective studies have examined early predictors of spine surgery after work-related back injury.

METHODS: Using Disability Risk Identification Study Cohort (D-RISC) data, we examined the early predictors of lumbar spine surgery within 3 years among Washington State workers, with new workers compensation temporary total disability claims for back injuries. Baseline measures included worker-reported measures obtained approximately 3 weeks after claim submission. We used medical bill data to determine whether participants underwent surgery, covered by the claim, within 3 years. Baseline predictors (P < 0.10) of surgery in bivariate analyses were included in a multivariate logistic regression model predicting lumbar spine surgery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model was used to determine the model’s ability to identify correctly workers who underwent surgery.

RESULTS: In the D-RISC sample of 1885 workers, 174 (9.2%) had a lumbar spine surgery within 3 years. Baseline variables associated with surgery (P < 0.05) in the multivariate model included higher Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores, greater injury severity, and surgeon as first provider seen for the injury. Reduced odds of surgery were observed for those younger than 35 years, females, Hispanics, and those whose first provider was a chiropractor. Approximately 42.7% of workers who first saw a surgeon had surgery, in contrast to only 1.5% of those who saw a chiropractor. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the multivariate model was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.95), indicating excellent ability to discriminate between workers who would versus would not have surgery.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page

(more…)

0

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

The Chiro.Org Blog

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