Search

Complementary and integrative health (CIH) providers, such as chiropractors and naturopathic doctors, have been an underutilized public health asset in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article seeks to inform how they can be better integrated into future responses to public health emergencies. The authors convened an expert panel of ten CIH and public health practitioners and researchers for a daylong discussion of how the CIH workforce could be better mobilized during future crises. In this article, the authors summarize the key barriers identified in the discussion and make recommendations on how they can be overcome.

In this paper we pay homage to Dr Alan H. Adams, who was born on November 3, 1945, and passed away on December 26, 2020. An early adopter of problem-based learning and evidence-based medicine, he contributed substantially to improving chiropractic education, research, and developing an evidence-based practice mindset for chiropractic practice. People who knew Al best recall that he was a fluent instigator of collaborative relationships, and he inspired and advanced many people in their academic and scientific careers. His curiosity, expertise, and mentorship were appreciated by many people and developed numerous interprofessional collaborations.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain self-efficacy (PSE) and coping self-efficacy (CSE) for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and to assess whether lower income may be associated with less PSE and CSE in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using survey data collected between June 2016 and February 2017 from n=1364 patients with CLBP from chiropractic clinics in the US to measure the relationship between income and both types of self-efficacy. We created 4 multivariate models predicting PSE and CSE scores. We used both a parsimonious set of covariates (age, sex) and a full set (age, sex, education, neck pain comorbidity, catastrophizing, and insurance). We also calculated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE score by income. RESULTS: Lower income was associated with lower PSE and CSE scores across all 4 models. In the full models, the highest income group had an average of 1 point (1–10 scale) higher PSE score and CSE score when compared to the lowest income group. Effect sizes for the unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE scores between the highest and lowest income groups were 0.94 and 0.84, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that people with lower income perceive themselves as less able to manage their pain, and that this relationship exists even after taking into account factors like health insurance and educational attainment. There is a need to further investigate how practitioners and policymakers can best support low-income patients with chronic pain.

Additional file 1: Appendix Table A.1. Results of the unconditional models; Appendix Table A.2. Average visit frequency for each category of each predictor variable in each sample; Appendix Table A.3. Models testing the options for insurance coverage and its effect on out-of-pocket visit costs; Appendix Table A.4. Full results of the final hierarchical linear models predicting chiropractic visit frequency for samples of patients with chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.

Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies.Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain.A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel.A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred.The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small.Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain.Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness.