COVID-19: how has a global pandemic changed manual therapy technique education in chiropractic programs around the world?

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy is a cornerstone of chiropractic education, whereby students work towards a level of skill and expertise that is regarded as competent to work within the field of chiropractic. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, chiropractic programs in every region around the world had to make rapid changes to the delivery of manual therapy technique education, however what those changes looked like was unknown. AIMS: The aims of this study were to describe the immediate actions made by chiropractic programs to deliver education for manual therapy techniques and to summarise the experience of academics who teach manual therapy techniques during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used to describe the immediate actions made by chiropractic programs to deliver manual therapy technique education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chiropractic programs were identified from the webpages of the Councils on Chiropractic Education International and the Council on Chiropractic Education - USA. Between May and June 2020, a convenience sample of academics who lead or teach in manual therapy technique in those programs were invited via email to participate in an online survey with open-ended questions. Responses were entered into the NVivo software program and analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis by a qualitative researcher independent to the data collection. RESULTS: Data from 16 academics in 13 separate chiropractic programs revealed five, interconnected themes: Immediate response; Move to online delivery; Impact on learning and teaching; Additional challenges faced by educators; and Ongoing challenges post lockdown. CONCLUSION: This study used a qualitative descriptive approach to describe how some chiropractic programs immediately responded to the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in their teaching of manual therapy techniques. Chiropractic programs around the world provided their students with rapid, innovative learning strategies, in an attempt to maintain high standards of chiropractic education; however, challenges included maintaining student engagement in an online teaching environment, psychomotor skills acquisition and staff workload.

Identifying subgroups of patients using latent class analysis: should we use a single-stage or a two-stage approach? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in patients with low back pain (LBP) is well recognised and different approaches to subgrouping have been proposed. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) is a statistical technique that is increasingly being used to identify subgroups based on patient characteristics. However, as LBP is a complex multi-domain condition, the optimal approach when using LCA is unknown. Therefore, this paper describes the exploration of two approaches to LCA that may help improve the identification of clinically relevant and interpretable LBP subgroups. METHODS: From 928 LBP patients consulting a chiropractor, baseline data were used as input to the statistical subgrouping. In a single-stage LCA, all variables were modelled simultaneously to identify patient subgroups. In a two-stage LCA, we used the latent class membership from our previously published LCA within each of six domains of health (activity, contextual factors, pain, participation, physical impairment and psychology) (first stage) as the variables entered into the second stage of the two-stage LCA to identify patient subgroups. The description of the results of the single-stage and two-stage LCA was based on a combination of statistical performance measures, qualitative evaluation of clinical interpretability (face validity) and a subgroup membership comparison. RESULTS: For the single-stage LCA, a model solution with seven patient subgroups was preferred, and for the two-stage LCA, a nine patient subgroup model. Both approaches identified similar, but not identical, patient subgroups characterised by (i) mild intermittent LBP, (ii) recent severe LBP and activity limitations, (iii) very recent severe LBP with both activity and participation limitations, (iv) work-related LBP, (v) LBP and several negative consequences and (vi) LBP with nerve root involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches identified clinically interpretable patient subgroups. The potential importance of these subgroups needs to be investigated by exploring whether they can be identified in other cohorts and by examining their possible association with patient outcomes. This may inform the selection of a preferred LCA approach.

Using existing questionnaires in latent class analysis: should we use summary scores or single items as input? A methodological study using a cohort of patients with low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Latent class analysis (LCA) is increasingly being used in health research, but optimal approaches to handling complex clinical data are unclear. One issue is that commonly used questionnaires are multidimensional, but expressed as summary scores. Using the example of low back pain (LBP), the aim of this study was to explore and descriptively compare the application of LCA when using questionnaire summary scores and when using single items to subgrouping of patients based on multidimensional data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline data from 928 LBP patients in an observational study were classified into four health domains (psychology, pain, activity, and participation) using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. LCA was performed within each health domain using the strategies of summary-score and single-item analyses. The resulting subgroups were descriptively compared using statistical measures and clinical interpretability. RESULTS: For each health domain, the preferred model solution ranged from five to seven subgroups for the summary-score strategy and seven to eight subgroups for the single-item strategy. There was considerable overlap between the results of the two strategies, indicating that they were reflecting the same underlying data structure. However, in three of the four health domains, the single-item strategy resulted in a more nuanced description, in terms of more subgroups and more distinct clinical characteristics. CONCLUSION: In these data, application of both the summary-score strategy and the single-item strategy in the LCA subgrouping resulted in clinically interpretable subgroups, but the single-item strategy generally revealed more distinguishing characteristics. These results 1) warrant further analyses in other data sets to determine the consistency of this finding, and 2) warrant investigation in longitudinal data to test whether the finer detail provided by the single-item strategy results in improved prediction of outcomes and treatment response.