Search

This study examines Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v1.0 outcomes of chiropractic care in a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial and compares the PROMIS measures to: 1) worst pain intensity from a numerical pain rating 0-10 scale, 2) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and 3) global improvement (modified visual analog scale). A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC). Three military treatment facilities. 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change. We found statistically significant mean group differences favoring UMC+CC for all PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ score. Area under the curve estimates for global improvement for the PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ, ranged from 0.79 to 0.83. Findings from this pre-planned secondary analysis demonstrate that chiropractic care impacts health-related quality of life beyond pain and pain-related disability. Further, comparable findings were found between the 24-item RMDQ and the PROMIS®-29 v1.0 briefer scales.

Abstract 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. Trial registration This trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 04 March 2011 with the ID number of NCT01312233.

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is a recognized public health problem, impacting up to 80% of US adults at some point in their lives. Patients with LBP are utilizing integrative health care such as spinal manipulation (SM). SM is the therapeutic application of a load to specific body tissues or structures and can be divided into two broad categories: SM with a high-velocity low-amplitude load, or an impulse "thrust", (HVLA-SM) and SM with a low-velocity variable-amplitude load (LVVA-SM). There is evidence that sensorimotor function in people with LBP is altered. This study evaluates the sensorimotor function in the lumbopelvic region, as measured by postural sway, response to sudden load and repositioning accuracy, following SM to the lumbar and pelvic region when compared to a sham treatment. Methods/Design A total of 219 participants with acute, subacute or chronic low back pain are being recruited from the Quad Cities area located in Iowa and Illinois. They are allocated through a minimization algorithm in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either 13 HVLA-SM treatments over 6 weeks, 13 LVVA-SM treatments over 6 weeks or 2 weeks of a sham treatment followed by 4 weeks of full spine "doctor's choice" SM. Sensorimotor function tests are performed before and immediately after treatment at baseline, week 2 and week 6. Self-report outcome assessments are also collected. The primary aims of this study are to 1) determine immediate pre to post changes in sensorimotor function as measured by postural sway following delivery of a single HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM treatment when compared to a sham treatment and 2) to determine changes from baseline to 2 weeks (4 treatments) of HVLA-SM or LVVA-SM compared to a sham treatment. Secondary aims include changes in response to sudden loads and lumbar repositioning accuracy at these endpoints, estimating sensorimotor function in the SM groups after 6 weeks of treatment, and exploring if changes in sensorimotor function are associated with changes in self-report outcome assessments. Discussion This study may provide clues to the sensorimotor mechanisms that explain observed functional deficits associated with LBP, as well as the mechanism of action of SM. Trial registration This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of NCT00830596, registered on January 27, 2009. The first participant was allocated on 30 January 2009 and the final participant was allocated on 17 March 2011.

Objective: To report the development and initial testing of a questionnaire designed to assess the concept of learning alignment within chiropractic college courses. Methods: A 36-item questionnaire, Educator's Learning Alignment Instrument (ELAI), was created to evaluate how learning goals, course activities, and assessments align within a college course. Questionnaire development was informed by learning theories and tested using a 2-phased electronic survey mechanism among a chiropractic college faculty. Phase 1 included completing the ELAI for a currently implemented course. Phase 2 included questions about confidential reports generated from ELAI data. Results: Thirty-one of 46 (67%) respondents completed an ELAI. Twelve (38%) participated in phase 2. Twenty-one (68%) courses demonstrated consistent learning focus across goals, activities, and assessments. Aggregate data from early, middle, and late chiropractic program courses revealed progressive shifts toward higher-level learning. Eightyseven percent of courses contained 1 or more individual learning areas with potentially misaligned goals, activities, or assessment. Ninety-seven percent of respondents completed ELAI questions within 20 minutes. Most (87%) phase 2 respondents noted the report accurately reflected the course. Sixty-seven percent of phase 2 respondents agreed that confidential reports provided useful information to inform course design. Conclusion: The ELAI is a nonburdensome instrument that can facilitate faculty reflection on how aligned learning concepts are applied in a course and provide novel data to assess general learning focus within college courses and within programs. Results indicate ELAI questions can be revised to improve clarity. Additional research comparing ELAI responses from experts, peer educators, and students is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: High-velocity. low-amplitude spinal manipulation (HVLA-SM) may generate different therapeutic effects depending on force and duration characteristics. Variability among clinicians suggests training to target specific thrust duration and force levels is necessary to standardize dosing. This pilot study assessed an HVLA-SM training program using prescribed force and thrust characteristics. Methods: Over 4 weeks, chiropractors and students at a chiropractic college delivered thoracic region HVLA-SM to a prone mannequin in six training sessions. each 30 minutes in duration. Force plates embedded in a treatment table were used to measure force over time. Training goals were 350 and 550 Newtons (N) for peak force and 5150 ms for thrust duration. Verbal and visual feedback was provided after each training thrust. Assessments included 10 consecutive thi-usts for each force target without feedback. Mixed-model regressioii was used to zinalyze assessments measilled before. immediately following. and 1. 4, and 8 weekA after training. Results: Error from peak force target. expressed as adjusted me.in constant error (standard deviation), went from 107 N (127) at baseline, to 0.2 N (41) immediately after training, and 32 N (53) 8 weeks after training for the 350 N target. and 63 N (148). -6 N (58). and 9 N (87) for the 550 N target. Student median values met thrust duration target. but doctors' were >150 ms immediately after training. Conclusion: After participation in an HVLA-SM training program. participants more accurately delivered two prescribed peak forces. but accuracy decreased I week afterwards. Future HVLA-SM training research should include follow-up of I week or more to assess skill retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine effects of thrust manipulation plus one conservative intervention for non-surgical shoulder pain and disability due to rotator cuff dysfunction. Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines. The databases searched were PubMed, PEDro, ICL, CINAHL, and AMED. Included were randomized trials with at least one group assigned to receive thrust manipulation and one adjunct conservative therapy. The PEDro scale was used to assess methodological quality and GRADE for analysis. Results: The search yielded 2088 articles with one meeting eligibility criteria. The trial examined thrust manipulation with exercise compared to sham. Statistically significant improvements in pain and disability were reported within but not between groups. Evidence quality according to the PEDro scale was good; GRADE was moderate. Conclusion: Few trials have been conducted studying thrust manipulation plus another conservative intervention for rotator cuff conditions rendering available evidence of thrust manipulation plus exercise insufficient to determine effects of this combined treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this article is to propose a graphical decision aid for managing radiology report information to assist learners in developing clinical decision-making skills through a structured approach. Methods: A graphical decision aid informed by learning theories was constructed to manage radiology report information by identifying an overall strategy, specific decision-making steps, and decision goals. A review of radiology reports was performed to demonstrate the rich source of complex information requiring clinical decision making. Radiology report data were descriptively analyzed, and findings were described as definite or indefinite, while recommendations were reported as required or optional. Results: The graphical decision aid involves 4 stages. The 1st 2 stages interpret report information and consider data obtained during the clinical encounter. The following 2 stages guide decisions by answering questions to ensure patient safety and/or to confirm diagnosis and to address broader case management questions. The mean fSD) age of participants whose imaging reports were reviewed was 73.4 (7.0) years. Of 170 reports, common findings included degenerative disc disease (98%), soft tissue or vascular calcification (94%), bone demineralization (92%), and zygapophyseal joint degeneration (86%). Common indefinite findings were spinal stenosis (15%), compression fracture (12%), bony abnormality (12%), radiodensity (12%), and disc degeneration (10%). One hundred twenty-one recommendations suggested follow-up actions. Conclusions: Information within imaging reports requires identification and interpretation to inform complex clinical decisions. The graphical decision aid proposed in this article is designed to facilitate the development of decisionmaking skills by providing a structured and evidence-based information management process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spinal manipulation (SM) is used commonly for treating low back pain (LBP). Spinal stiffness is routinely assessed by clinicians performing SM. Flexion-relaxation ratio (FRR) was shown to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association of these two physiological variables with patient-reported pain intensity and disability in adults with chronic LBP (>12 weeks) receiving SM. Methods: A single-arm trial provided 12 sessions of side-lying thrust SM in the lumbosacral region over 6 weeks. Inclusion criteria included 21-65 years old, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6 and numerical pain rating score ≥ 2. Spinal stiffness and FRR were assessed pre-treatment at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 weeks of treatment. Lumbar spine global stiffness (GS) were calculated from the force-displacement curves obtained using i) hand palpation, ii) a hand-held device, and iii) an automated indenter device. Lumbar FRR was assessed during trunk flexion-extension using surface electromyography. The primary outcomes were RMDQ and pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Mixed-effects regression models were used to analyze the data. Results: The mean age of the 82 participants was 45 years; 48% were female; and 84% reported LBP >1 year. The mean (standard deviation) baseline pain intensity and RMDQ were 46.1 (18.1) and 9.5 (4.3), respectively. The mean reduction (95% confidence interval) after 6 weeks in pain intensity and RMDQ were 20.1 mm (14.1 to 26.1) and 4.8 (3.7 to 5.8). There was a small change over time in the palpatory GS but not in the hand-held or automated GS, nor in FRR. The addition of each physiologic variable did not affect the model-estimated changes in VAS or RMDQ over time. There was no association seen between physiological variables and LBP intensity. Higher levels of hand-held GS at L3 and automated GS were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and lower levels of flexion and extension FRR were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.008, respectively) across the 3 assessment time points. Conclusions: Improvement in pain and disability observed in study participants with chronic LBP was not associated with the measured GS or FRR. Trial registration: NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov, August 2, 2012 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]