A commentary on the use of mixed methods in chiropractic research: Part 2: findings and recommendations for improving future chiropractic mixed methods studies.

In part 1 of this commentary, we presented an overview of mixed methods research and the rationales for using this methodology with examples from the chiropractic literature. We also introduced readers to the three core mixed methods study designs, as well as the advantages and challenges of employing a mixed methods approach. In part 2 of this series, we provide a summary of the primary and secondary findings from our doctoral work involving mixed methods research and make recommendations for improving the reporting and conduct of future chiropractic mixed methods studies.

Commentaire sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Partie 2: résultats et recommandations pour améliorer les futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique.Dans la première partie de cette étude, nous avons présenté un aperçu de la recherche par méthodes mixtes et les raisons d'utiliser cette méthodologie à l'aide d'exemples provenant des ouvrages sur la chiropratique. Nous avons également présenté aux lecteurs les trois principaux modèles d'étude des méthodes mixtes, ainsi que les avantages et les difficultés liés à l'utilisation de ces méthodes. Dans la deuxième partie de cette série, nous présentons un résumé des résultats primaires et secondaires de notre travail de doctorat concernant les méthodes mixtes de recherche et nous formulons des recommandations pour améliorer les rapports et la conduite des futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique.

A commentary on the use of mixed methods in chiropractic research: Part 3: integration of qualitative research with randomized controlled trials.

This is the third of three papers in our series of articles on the use of mixed methods in chiropractic research. In this commentary, we discuss the mixed methods experimental (or intervention) design. This design is a complex mixed methods research design in which qualitative research is integrated with randomized controlled trials. We provide a brief overview of this study design as well as a case example from the literature to illustrate how this approach can be applied to research within the chiropractic profession.

Étude sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Partie 3: intégration de la recherche qualitative aux essais cliniques randomisés.Cet article est le troisième d'une série de trois articles sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Dans cet article, nous abordons le modèle expérimental (ou d'intervention) des méthodes mixtes. Il s'agit d'un modèle complexe de recherche par méthodes mixte dans lequel la recherche qualitative est intégrée à des essais cliniques randomisés. Nous présentons un aperçu de ce modèle d'étude ainsi qu'un exemple issu des ouvrages spécialisés afin d'illustrer la manière dont cette approche peut être appliquée à la recherche dans le domaine de la chiropratique.

A commentary on the use of mixed methods in chiropractic research: Part 1: overview of mixed methods research.

We recently each completed doctoral programs where the major focus of our work was in mixed methods research. In the first part of this three-part commentary, we present an overview of mixed methods research. In the second part, we present a summary of our primary and secondary research findings from our doctoral work involving mixed methods. In a third paper, we will discuss integrating qualitative research with randomized controlled trials and how this mixed methods study design can be applied to research within the chiropractic profession. Our aim with these papers is to increase awareness amongst the chiropractic community of the value (and challenges) of using this unique methodology. We also make recommendations for improving the quality of reporting and conduct of future chiropractic mixed methods studies. Further dissemination of this work will occur through online webinars and conference presentations.

Étude sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Partie 1: aperçu des méthodes mixtes de rechercheNous avons récemment terminé chacun un programme de doctorat dont l'objectif principal était les méthodes mixtes de recherche. Dans la première partie de cette étude en trois parties, nous présentons un aperçu sur les méthodes mixtes de recherche. Dans la deuxième partie, nous présentons un résumé des résultats de nos recherches primaires et secondaires dans le cadre de nos travaux de doctorat impliquant des méthodes mixtes. Dans un troisième article, nous discuterons de l'intégration de la recherche qualitative aux essais cliniques randomisés et de la manière dont ce modèle d'étude mixte peut être appliqué à la recherche au sein de la profession chiropratique.L'objectif de ces articles est de sensibiliser la communauté chiropratique à la valeur (et aux difficultés) de l'utilisation de cette méthodologie unique. Nous formulons également des recommandations pour améliorer la qualité des rapports et la conduite des futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique. La diffusion de ce travail se fera par des webinaires en ligne et des présentations lors de conférences.

Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria. METHODS: In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria. RESULTS: Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

Risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research: a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review.

Objective: To examine the risk of bias in chiropractic mixed methods research. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a meta-epidemiological review of chiropractic mixed methods studies. We assessed risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and used generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with risk of bias. Results: Among 55 eligible studies, a mean of 62% (6.8 [2.3]/11) of MMAT items were fulfilled. In our adjusted analysis, studies published since 2010 versus pre-2010 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 3.68) and those published in journals with an impact factor versus no impact factor (aOR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.68) were associated with lower risk of bias. Conclusion: Our findings suggest opportunities for improvement in the quality of conduct among published chiropractic mixed methods studies. Author compliance with the MMAT criteria may reduce methodological bias in future mixed methods research.

Objectif: examiner le risque de biais dans la recherche sur les méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. Méthodologie: nous avons effectué une analyse secondaire d'un examen méta-épidémiologique d'études de méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. Nous avons examiné le risque de biais avec The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, MMAT (l'outil d'évaluation des méthodes mixtes), et utilisé des équations d'estimation généralisées pour explorer les facteurs associés au risque de biais. Résultats: parmi 55 études admissibles, une moyenne de 62 % (6,8 [2,3]/11) des items du MMAT ont été remplis. Dans notre analyse ajustée, les études publiées depuis 2010 versus celles d'avant 2010 (rapport de cotes [aOR] ajusté = 2,26; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 1,39 à 3,68), et celles publiées dans des revues avec un indice de citations versus aucun indice de citations (aOR = 2,21; IC à 95 %, 1,33 à 3,68) étaient associées à un risque de biais plus faible. Conclusion: nos résultats suggèrent des opportunités d'amélioration de la qualité de la conduite parmi les études publiées sur les méthodes mixtes chiropratiques. La conformité des auteurs aux critères MMAT peut réduire les biais méthodologiques dans les futures recherches sur les méthodes mixtes.

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. DISCUSSION: This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Response of Practicing Chiropractors during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Report.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained all levels of healthcare and it is not known how chiropractic practitioners have responded to this crisis. The purpose of this report is to describe responses by a sample of chiropractors during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a qualitative-constructivist design to understand chiropractic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, as described by the participants. A sample of chiropractic practitioners (doctors of chiropractic, chiropractors) from various international locations were invited to participate. Each described the public health response to COVID-19 in their location and the actions that they took in their chiropractic practices from April 20 through May 4, 2020. A summary report was created from their responses and common themes were identified. RESULTS: Eighteen chiropractic practitioners representing 17 locations and 11 countries participated. A variety of practice environments were represented in this sample, including, solo practice, mobile practice, private hospital, US Veterans Administration health care, worksite health center, and group practice. They reported that they recognized and abided by changing governmental regulations. They observed their patients experience increased stress and mental health concerns resulting from the pandemic. They adopted innovative strategies, such as telehealth, to do outreach, communicate with, and provide care for patients. They abided by national and World Health Organization recommendations and they adopted creative strategies to maintain connectivity with patients through a people-centered, integrated, and collaborative approach. CONCLUSION: Although the chiropractors in this sample practiced in different cities and countries, their compliance with local regulations, concern for staff and patient safety, and people-centered responses were consistent. This sample covers all 7 World Federation of Chiropractic regions (ie, African, Asian, Eastern Mediterranean, European, Latin American, North American, and Pacific) and provides insights into measures taken by chiropractors during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This information may assist the chiropractic profession as it prepares for different scenarios as new evidence about this disease evolves.

A pilot study assessing patient-centred care in patients with chronic health conditions attending chiropractic practice.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of conducting a mixed- methods study assessing the extent patients with chronic health conditions perceive chiropractic care to be patient-centred. DESIGN: A sequential mixed methods feasibility study with a quantitative priority. SETTING: Two private chiropractic clinics in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes included pilot study participation, consent and completion rates. Demographic and health information and a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). RESULTS: Over three weeks, 90 participants were recruited, 86 enrolled, and 78 provided complete data, with only one who commented on the clarity of paperwork. Included participants were on average 47.1 years of age and 60.3% were female. They had an average of 1.8 chronic conditions with 60% having chronic spinal pain. They reported seeing an average of 2.9 other health professionals for their chronic health condition and averaged 12.9 chiropractic visits in the past year. The average overall modified PACIC score was 3.29 on a 5-point scale. Higher scores were seen on the 'patient activation', 'delivery system design/decision support', and 'problem solving/contextual' subscales, with lower scores seen on the 'goal-setting/tailoring' and 'follow-up/coordination' subscales. Interview data generally supported those findings. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study results support the feasibility of the methods for a subsequent large-scale study. These preliminary results suggest that the degree of patient-centredness compares favourably to similar studies in primary medical care.

Core stability exercises for low back pain in athletes: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of core stability exercises for treating athletes with low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: We searched several databases (Medline, AMED, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and EMBASE). Our eligibility criteria consisted of articles published in a peer-reviewed journal in English, using any prospective clinical study design, where athletes with nonspecific LBP were treated with core stability exercises in at least 1 study arm, and back pain intensity and/or disability were used as outcome measures. All included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, whereas non-RCT studies were assessed for quality using the Downs and Black checklist. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies including 151 participants met the inclusion criteria, including 2 RCTs. The quality of the literature on this topic was deemed to be low overall, with only 1 non-RCT having a moderate quality score, and 1 RCT having a lower risk of bias. Four studies reported statistically significant decreases in back pain intensity in their core stability intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of literature on the use of core stability exercises for treating LBP in athletes is low. The existing evidence has been conducted on small and heterogeneous study populations using interventions that vary drastically with only mixed results and short-term follow-up. This precludes the formulation of strong conclusions, and additional high quality research is clearly needed.

The spinal stenosis pedometer and nutrition lifestyle intervention (SSPANLI) randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Because of symptoms, people with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) are often inactive, and this sedentary behaviour implies risk for diseases including obesity. Research has identified body mass index as the most powerful predictor of function in LSS. This suggests that function may be improved by targeting weight as a modifiable factor. An e-health lifestyle intervention was developed aimed at reducing fat mass and increasing physical activity in people with LSS. The main components of this intervention include pedometer-based physical activity promotion and nutrition education. METHODS/DESIGN: The Spinal Stenosis Pedometer and Nutrition Lifestyle INTERVENTION (SSPANLI) was developed and piloted with 10 individuals. The protocol for a randomized controlled trail comparing the SSPANLI intervention to usual non-surgical care follows. One hundred six (106) overweight or obese individuals with LSS will be recruited. Baseline and follow-up testing includes dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, blood draw, 3-day food record, 7-day accelerometry, questionnaire, maximal oxygen consumption, neurological exam, balance testing and a Self-Paced Walking Test. INTERVENTION: During Week 1, the intervention group will receive a pedometer, and a personalized consultation with both a Dietitian and an exercise specialist. For 12 weeks participants will log on to the e-health website to access personal step goals, walking maps, nutrition videos, and motivational quotes. Participants will also have access to in-person Coffee Talk meetings every 3 weeks, and meet with the Dietitian and exercise specialist at week 6. The control group will proceed with usual care for the 12-week period. Follow-up testing will occur at Weeks 13 and 24. DISCUSSION: This lifestyle intervention has the potential to provide a unique, non-surgical management option for people with LSS. Through decreased fat mass and increased function, we may reduce risk for obesity, chronic diseases of inactivity, and pain. The use of e-health interventions provides an opportunity for patients to become more involved in managing their own health. Behaviour changes including increased physical activity, and improved dietary habits promote overall health and quality of life, and may decrease future health care needs in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01902979.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Chiropractic treatment of pregnancy-related low back pain: a systematic review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: This study systematically reviewed the published evidence regarding chiropractic care, including spinal manipulation, for pregnancy-related low back pain (LBP). METHODS: A multimodal search strategy was conducted, including multiple database searches along with reference and journal hand searching. Studies were limited to those published in English and in a peer-reviewed journal or conference proceeding between January 1982 and July 2007. All study designs were considered except single case reports, personal narratives, and qualitative designs. Retrieved articles that met the inclusion criteria were rated for quality by using a validated and reliable checklist. RESULTS: Six studies met the review's inclusion criteria in the form of 1 quasi-experimental single-group pretest-posttest design, 4 case series, and 1 cross-sectional case series study; their quality scores ranged from 5 to 14 of 27. All of the included studies reported positive results for chiropractic care of LBP during pregnancy. Outcome measure use between the studies was inconsistent as were descriptions of patients, treatments, and treatment schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the 6 included studies showed that chiropractic care is associated with improved outcomes in pregnancy-related LBP. However, the low-to-moderate quality of evidence of the included studies preclude any definitive statement as to the efficacy of such care because all studies lacked both randomization and control groups. Given the relatively common use of chiropractic care during pregnancy, there is need for higher quality observational studies and controlled trials to determine efficacy.

An online survey of chiropractors' opinions of Continuing Education.

BACKGROUND: Continuing Education (CE) for chiropractors is mandatory for licensure in most North American jurisdictions. Numerous chiropractic colleges have begun collaborating with universities to offer master's degree programs. Distance education master's degree programs may be desirable to allow full-time practicing doctors to further their post-graduate education. The present survey sought to answer three questions. First, what is the level of satisfaction of chiropractors with their continuing education? Second, what is the level of interest of chiropractors in online master's degree programs? Lastly, what is the response rate of chiropractors to an online survey? METHODS: An online survey consisting of 22 multiple choice questions was e-mailed to 1000 chiropractors randomly selected from the mailing list of an online chiropractic newsletter. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants' answers were saved on a secure site. Data analysis included evaluation of the demographic characteristics of the respondents, their opinions of and patterns of taking CE including online education, preferred learning formats, and their interest in proposed online master's degree programs. A survey response rate was determined. RESULTS: Nearly 86% of respondents felt their previously completed CE courses were either somewhat or extremely satisfactory. Over ninety percent of respondents who had completed online or distance CE courses found them to be somewhat or extremely satisfactory. Almost half the respondents indicated that they most preferred online distance learning, while 34.08% most preferred face-to-face interaction. Fifty-three percent of respondents indicated an interest in starting a master's degree program; however 70.46% of respondents were interested in an online master's degree program that would offer CE credit. A response rate of 35.8% was obtained. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction among chiropractors with CE programs is high. The notion of completing a part-time online master's degree (or online combined with face-to-face interaction) appears to be popular among respondents, with a M.Sc. in Chiropractic Sciences being the most popular of those mentioned. Online surveys are a viable method of obtaining opinion in a cost and time efficient manner; there are some sources of bias involved in this type of research, and numerous steps need to be taken to obtain a suitable response rate.