Search

Background Osteopathy in Australia is a primary care limited scope practice. Practitioner surveys suggest that patients present with chronic pain and receive manual therapies, exercise and lifestyle advice. Further research is required to deepen the understanding of this intervention from the perspective of patients. Objective To explore the experience of patients receiving osteopathic healthcare. Design Mixed methodology. Method A quantitative survey of a convenience sample of patients was followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews in a purposive sample of respondents with chronic non-specific low back pain. The transcripts were analysed using a phenomenological approach. Results The survey results suggested directions of enquiry for the interviews. Eleven subjects were interviewed and reported commonalities in their clinical histories with multisystem co-morbidities. Four themes became apparent: patient decision-making, patient shared experiences of the osteopathic healthcare consultation, tailored patient-centred care, and therapeutic relationship in healthcare. Conclusion This data suggests that patients experience osteopathic healthcare after trying other disciplines; that there are shared aspects of the consultations, with a thorough assessment, education about their condition, multiple manual therapies and lifestyle advice; that the experience is patient-centred and tailored to their context; and that the therapeutic relationship is a key aspect of the experience. These results reflect a number of aspects of osteopathic healthcare from workplace surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic Non Specific Low Back Pain (CNSLBP) is a common, complex and disabling condition that has been present for longer than three months and is not caused by a serious pathology. Osteopaths are health practitioners who commonly diagnose and treat CNSLBP patients using a complex set of interventions that includes manual therapy. The study aimed to complete a Systematic Review of clinical research into osteopathic intervention in CNSLBP using a rigorous assessment of study quality. Methods: The literature was searched to August 2011 using the following databases: AMED, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, MEDLINE Plus, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, PEDro, ScienceDirect. Multiple search terms were used in various combinations: osteopathy/osteopathic, osteopathic manipulative technique, OMT, Spinal Manipulative Therapy, SMT, clinical trial, back pain, chronic back pain. The inclusion criteria were papers that: reported clinical trials; had adult participants; tested the effectiveness and/or efficacy of osteopathic manual therapy intervention applied by osteopaths, and had a study condition of CNSLBP. The quality of the papers was assessed using the Cochrane Back Review Risk of Bias criteria. A meta-analysis would proceed if the studies had adequate clinical and methodological homogeneity. Results: Initial searches revealed 809 papers, 772 of which were excluded on the basis of abstract alone. The remaining 37 trial papers were subjected to a more detailed analysis of the full text, which resulted in 35 being excluded. The two remaining trials had a lack of methodological and clinical homogeneity, precluding a metaanalysis. The trials used different comparators with regards to the primary outcomes, the number of treatments, the duration of treatment and the duration of follow-up. Conclusion: There are only two studies assessing the effect of the manual therapy intervention applied by osteopathic clinicians in adults with CNSLBP. One trial concluded that the osteopathic intervention was similar in effect to a sham intervention, and the other suggests similarity of effect between osteopathic intervention, exercise and physiotherapy. Further clinical trials into this subject are required that have consistent and rigorous methods. These trials need to include an appropriate control and utilise an intervention that reflects actual practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]