The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective: To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions: Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results: We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Clinical Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

As a large national healthcare system, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is ideally suited to build on its work to date and develop a safe, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the care of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions that de-emphasizes opioid use and emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies. The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) held a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference titled "Non-pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Management" in November 2016. Goals of the conference were (1) to establish consensus on the current state of evidence regarding non-pharmacological approaches to chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform VHA policy in this area and (2) to begin to identify priorities for the future VHA research agenda. Workgroups were established and asked to reach consensus recommendations on clinical and research priorities for the following treatment strategies: psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, manual therapies, and models for delivering multimodal pain care. Participants in the SOTA identified nine non-pharmacological therapies with sufficient evidence to be implemented across the VHA system as part of pain care. Participants further recommended that effective integration of these non-pharmacological approaches across the VHA and especially into VHA primary care, pain care, and mental health settings should be a priority, and that these treatments should be offered early in the course of pain treatment and delivered in a team-based, multimodal treatment setting concurrently with active self-care and self-management approaches. In addition, we recommend that VHA leadership and policy makers systematically address the barriers to implementation of these approaches by expanding opportunities for clinician and veteran education on the effectiveness of these strategies; supporting and funding further research to determine optimal dosage, duration, sequencing, combination, and frequency of treatment; emphasizing multimodal care with rigorous evaluation grounded in team-based approaches to test integrated models of delivery and stepped-care approaches; and working to address socioeconomic and cultural barriers to veterans' access to non-pharmacological approaches.

Cost-effectiveness of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction Versus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care Among Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus usual care alone (UC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP). OBJECTIVE: To determine 1-year cost-effectiveness of CBT and MBSR compared to 33 UC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CLBP is expensive in terms of healthcare costs and lost productivity. Mind-body interventions have been found effective for back pain, but their cost-effectiveness is unexplored. METHODS: A total of 342 adults in an integrated healthcare system with CLBP were randomized to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or UC (n = 113). CBT and MBSR were offered in 8-weekly 2-hour group sessions. Cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective was calculated as the incremental sum of healthcare costs and productivity losses over change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The payer perspective only included healthcare costs. This economic evaluation was limited to the 301 health plan members enrolled ≥180 days in the years pre-and postrandomization. RESULTS: Compared with UC, the mean incremental cost per participant to society of CBT was $125 (95% confidence interval, CI: -4103, 4307) and of MBSR was -$724 (CI: -4386, 2778)-that is, a net saving of $724. Incremental costs per participant to the health plan were $495 for CBT over UC and -$982 for MBSR, and incremental back-related costs per participant were $984 for CBT over UC and -$127 for MBSR. These costs (and cost savings) were associated with statistically significant gains in QALYs over UC: 0.041 (0.015, 0.067) for CBT and 0.034 (0.008, 0.060) for MBSR. CONCLUSION: In this setting CBT and MBSR have high probabilities of being cost-effective, and MBSR may be cost saving, as compared with UC for adults with CLBP. These findings suggest that MBSR, and to a lesser extent CBT, may provide cost-effective treatment for CLBP for payers and society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind-body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind-body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The self-reported health and functional status of persons with back pain in the United States have declined in recent years, despite greatly increased medical expenditures due to this problem. Although patient psychosocial factors such as pain-related beliefs, thoughts and coping behaviors have been demonstrated to affect how well patients respond to treatments for back pain, few patients receive treatments that address these factors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which addresses psychosocial factors, has been found to be effective for back pain, but access to qualified therapists is limited. Another treatment option with potential for addressing psychosocial issues, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), is increasingly available. MBSR has been found to be helpful for various mental and physical conditions, but it has not been well-studied for application with chronic back pain patients. In this trial, we will seek to determine whether MBSR is an effective and cost-effective treatment option for persons with chronic back pain, compare its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with CBT and explore the psychosocial variables that may mediate the effects of MBSR and CBT on patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we will randomize 397 adults with nonspecific chronic back pain to CBT, MBSR or usual care arms (99 per group). Both interventions will consist of eight weekly 2-hour group sessions supplemented by home practice. The MBSR protocol also includes an optional 6-hour retreat. Interviewers masked to treatment assignments will assess outcomes 5, 10, 26 and 52 weeks postrandomization. The primary outcomes will be pain-related functional limitations (based on the Roland Disability Questionnaire) and symptom bothersomeness (rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) at 26 weeks. DISCUSSION: If MBSR is found to be an effective and cost-effective treatment option for patients with chronic back pain, it will become a valuable addition to the limited treatment options available to patients with significant psychosocial contributors to their pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

Effect of risk adjustment method on comparisons of health care utilization between complementary and alternative medicine users and nonusers.

OBJECTIVES: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers are becoming more integrated into the United States health care system. Because patients self-select CAM use, risk adjustment is needed to make the groups more comparable when analyzing utilization. This study examined how the choice of risk adjustment method affects assessment of CAM use on overall health care utilization. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Insurance claims data for 2000-2003 from Washington State, which mandates coverage of CAM providers, were analyzed. Three (3) risk adjustment methods were compared in patients with musculoskeletal conditions: Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG), Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCG), and the Charlson Index. Relative Value Units (RVUs) were used as a proxy for expenditures. Two (2) sets of median regression models were created: prospective, which used risk adjustments from the previous year to predict RVU in the subsequent year, and concurrent, which used risk adjustment measures to predict RVU in the same year. RESULTS: The sample included 92,474 claimants. Prospective models showed little difference in the effect of CAM use on RVU among the three risk adjustment methods, and all models had low predictive power (R(2) ≤0.05). In the concurrent models, coefficients were similar in direction and magnitude for all risk adjustment methods, but in some models the predicted effect of CAM use on RVU differed by as much as double between methods. Results of DCG and ACG models were similar and were stronger than Charlson models. CONCLUSIONS: Choice of risk adjustment method may have a modest effect on the outcome of interest.

The association of complementary and alternative medicine use and health care expenditures for back and neck problems.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.

Patient and clinician openness to including a broader range of healing options in primary care.

PURPOSE: We studied the openness of patients and clinicians to introducing a broader range of healing options into primary care. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with primary care patients (4 groups) and clinicians (3 groups) from an integrated medical care system in 2008. Transcripts of discussions were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach. RESULTS: Both patients (n = 44) and clinicians (n = 32) were open to including a wider variety of healing options in primary care. Patients desired some evidence of effectiveness, although there was wide variation in the type of evidence required. Many patients believed that the clinician's personal and practice experience was an important form of evidence. Patients wanted to share in the decision to refer and the choice of options. Clinicians were most concerned with safety of specific treatments, including some of the herbs and dietary supplements. They also believed they lacked adequate information about the nature, benefits, and risks of many alternatives, and they were not aware of local practitioners and resources to whom they could confidently refer their patients. Both patients and clinicians were concerned that services recommended be covered by insurance or be affordable to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating additional healing options into primary care may be feasible and desirable, as well as help meet the needs of patients with conditions that have not been responsive to standard medical treatments.

A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) SETTING: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. PATIENTS: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. INTERVENTION: Structural massage (n = 132), relaxation massage (n = 136), or usual care (n = 133). MEASUREMENTS: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. LIMITATION: Participants were not blinded to treatment. CONCLUSION: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Addition of choice of complementary therapies to usual care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost of usual care plus patient choice of acupuncture, chiropractic, or massage therapy (choice) compared with usual care alone in patients with acute low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have evaluated care models with facilitated access to and financial coverage for adjunctive complementary and alternative medicine therapies. METHODS: A total of 444 patients with acute LBP (<21 days) were recruited from 4 clinical sites and randomized into 2 groups: usual care or choice. Outcomes included symptoms (bothersomeness), functional status (Roland), and satisfaction between baseline and 5 weeks, and cost of medical care in the 12 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: After 5 weeks, providing patients with a choice did not yield clinically important reductions in symptoms (median -4, [interquartile range -7, -2] for usual care, and -5 [-7, -3] for choice; P = 0.002) or improvements in functional status (-8 [-13, -2] for usual care, and -9 [-15, -4] for choice; P = 0.15). Although there was a significantly greater satisfaction with care in the choice group, this came at a net increase in costs of 244 dollars per patient. This consisted of a 99 dollars reduction in the average cost to the insurer for medical care but an additional cost of 343 dollars, for an average of 6.0 complementary and alternative medicine treatments per patient. CONCLUSIONS: A model of care that offered access to a choice of complementary and alternative medicine therapies for acute LBP did not result in clinically significant improvements in symptom relief or functional restoration. This model was associated with greater patient satisfaction but increased total costs. Future evaluations of this choice model should focus on patients with chronic conditions (including chronic back pain) for which conventional medical care is often costly and of limited benefit.

Insurance coverage and subsequent utilization of complementary and alternative medicine providers.

BACKGROUND: Since 1996, Washington State law has required that private health insurance cover licensed complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how insured people used CAM providers and what role this played in healthcare utilization and expenditures. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of insurance enrollees from western Washington in 2002. METHODS: Analysis of insurance demographic data, claims files, benefit information, diagnoses, CAM and conventional provider utilization, and healthcare expenditures for 3 large health insurance companies. RESULTS: Among more than 600,000 enrollees, 13.7% made CAM claims. This included 1.3% of enrollees with claims for acupuncture, 1.6% for naturopathy, 2.4% for massage, and 10.9% for chiropractic. Patients enrolled in preferred provider organizations and point-of-service products were notably more likely to use CAM than those with health maintenance organization coverage. The use of CAM was greater among women and among persons 31 to 50 years of age. The use of chiropractic was more frequent in less populous counties. The CAM provider visits usually focused on musculoskeletal complaints except for naturopathic physicians, who treated a broader array of problems. The median per-visit expenditures were 39.00 dollars for CAM care and 74.40 dollars for conventional outpatient care. The total expenditures per enrollee were 2589 dollars, of which 75 dollars(2.9%) was spent on CAM. CONCLUSIONS: The number of people using CAM insurance benefits was substantial; the effect on insurance expenditures was modest. Because the long-term trajectory of CAM cost under third-party payment is unknown, utilization of these services should be followed.

A survey of training and practice patterns of massage therapists in two US states.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of therapeutic massage in the US, little is known about the training or practice characteristics of massage therapists. The objective of this study was to describe these characteristics. METHODS: As part of a study of random samples of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners, we interviewed 226 massage therapists licensed in Connecticut and Washington state by telephone in 1998 and 1999 (85% of those contacted) and then asked a sample of them to record information on 20 consecutive visits to their practices (total of 2005 consecutive visits). RESULTS: Most massage therapists were women (85%), white (95%), and had completed some continuing education training (79% in Connecticut and 52% in Washington). They treated a limited number of conditions, most commonly musculoskeletal (59% and 63%) (especially back, neck, and shoulder problems), wellness care (20% and 19%), and psychological complaints (9% and 6%) (especially anxiety and depression). Practitioners commonly used one or more assessment techniques (67% and 74%) and gave a massage emphasizing Swedish (81% and 77%), deep tissue (63% and 65%), and trigger/pressure point techniques (52% and 46%). Self-care recommendations, including increasing water intake, body awareness, and specific forms of movement, were made as part of more than 80% of visits. Although most patients self-referred to massage, more than one-quarter were receiving concomitant care for the same problem from a physician. Massage therapists rarely communicated with these physicians. CONCLUSION: This study provides new information about licensed massage therapists that should be useful to physicians and other healthcare providers interested in learning about massage therapy in order to advise their patients about this popular CAM therapy.

The role of alternative medical providers for the outpatient treatment of insured patients with back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of health insurance claims from 2 large Washington State companies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and cost of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) provider use for back pain treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Washington State requires all commercial insurance to cover licensed CAM providers. METHODS: Outpatient claims for the treatment of back pain were analyzed by the International Classification of Disease-9 codes and provider type. The number of visits and expenditures associated with different forms of treatments were calculated. RESULTS: Back pain accounted for 15% of all outpatient visits, and these companies spent more than $52 million on 652,593 claims submitted by 104,358 adults. Most people used only CAM (43%) or only conventional providers (45%) for back pain treatment, with merely 12% using both. Patients who saw only CAM providers had fewer comorbidities than the other 2 groups and made approximately twice as many visits as "conventional only" users (median 4 vs. 2). Average amount allowed per outpatient low back pain claim was lower for CAM visits (mean $50, SD $28) than for conventional visits (mean $128, SD $173). Total outpatient costs for the treatment of back pain were highest for the group using both CAM and conventional care (mean $1079, SD $1185), and lowest for the group using CAM only (mean $342, SD $429). CONCLUSION: Many people with back pain use only CAM for their treatment. Although less expensive, this group also appears to be less severely ill. Because of the high prevalence of this condition, cost-effectiveness studies that include CAM therapies are still warranted.

Visit time as a framework for reimbursement: time spent with chiropractors and acupuncturists.

CONTEXT: Visit length is an important component of physician payment systems. As use and insurance coverage of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) increases, equitable reimbursement strategies for CAM providers will be needed. Little information is available about the time CAM providers spend with patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the length of visit and determinants of visit time to chiropractors and acupuncturists. DESIGN: Survey of CAM practitioners that collected information on providers (e.g., socio-demographics, practice patterns, training) and professional visit encounters (e.g., patient demographics, payment source, problem acuity, visit length, procedures performed). SUBJECTS: Random sample of 130 licensed chiropractors and 133 licensed acupuncturists surveyed in 1998-1999, each from one Western and one Northeastern US state. MEASURES: Patient, provider, and visit factors associated with visit duration were analyzed using weighted linear regression. RESULTS: Data were available on 2550 chiropractic and 2561 acupuncture visits. Mean chiropractic visit length was 21.5 minutes (SE = 0.8). Mean acupuncture visit length was 56.6 minutes (SE = 0.7) In both professions, new patient visits took longer, while visits for wellness or chronic problems were shorter. Preventive counseling by the chiropractor increased visit time, as did use of manual (vs. instrument) spinal manipulation, soft tissue techniques and physiotherapeutics. Acupuncture visits were shorter when specialized needling techniques (e.g. auricular or scalp acupuncture) were used, and longer with other adjunctive Asian therapies (e.g., cupping or magnets). Self-paid acupuncture visits were longer, as were visits with acupuncturists who had less practice experience or fewer years of training. CONCLUSIONS: For both chiropractic and acupuncture, certain visit factors, provider characteristics, and procedures increase visit length, many of which parallel those observed in conventional medical settings. Thus, a similar time-based payment scheme may be a reasonable starting point for developing methods for reimbursing CAM providers.

A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments for back pain are supported by strong scientific evidence. Conventional treatments, although widely used, have had limited success. Dissatisfied patients have, therefore, turned to complementary and alternative medical therapies and providers for care for back pain. PURPOSE: To provide a rigorous and balanced summary of the best available evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and costs of the most popular complementary and alternative medical therapies used to treat back pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that were published since 1995 and that evaluated acupuncture, massage therapy, or spinal manipulation for nonspecific back pain and RCTs published since the reviews were conducted. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data from the reviews (including number of RCTs, type of back pain, quality assessment, and conclusions) and original articles (including type of pain, comparison treatments, sample size, outcomes, follow-up intervals, loss to follow-up, and authors' conclusions). DATA SYNTHESIS: Because the quality of the 20 RCTs that evaluated acupuncture was generally poor, the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating acute or chronic back pain is unclear. The three RCTs that evaluated massage reported that this therapy is effective for subacute and chronic back pain. A meta-regression analysis of the results of 26 RCTs evaluating spinal manipulation for acute and chronic back pain reported that spinal manipulation was superior to sham therapies and therapies judged to have no evidence of a benefit but was not superior to effective conventional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Initial studies have found massage to be effective for persistent back pain. Spinal manipulation has small clinical benefits that are equivalent to those of other commonly used therapies. The effectiveness of acupuncture remains unclear. All of these treatments seem to be relatively safe. Preliminary evidence suggests that massage, but not acupuncture or spinal manipulation, may reduce the costs of care after an initial course of therapy.

Characteristics of visits to licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists, and naturopathic physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing popularity of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies, little is known about the patients seen by CAM practitioners. Our objective was to describe the patients and problems seen by CAM practitioners. METHODS: We collected data on 20 consecutive visits to randomly sampled licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists, and naturopathic physicians practicing in Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington. Data were collected on patient demographics, smoking status, referral source, reasons for visit, concurrent medical care, payment source, and visit duration. Comparative data for conventional physicians were drawn from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: In each profession, at least 99 practitioners collected data on more than 1,800 visits. More than 80% of visits to CAM providers were by young and middle-aged adults, and roughly two thirds were by women. Children comprised 10% of visits to naturopathic physicians but only 1% to 4% of all visits to other CAM providers. At least two thirds of visits resulted from self-referrals, and only 4% to 12% of visits were from conventional physician referrals. Chiropractors and massage therapists primarily saw musculoskeletal problems, while acupuncturists and naturopathic physicians saw a broader range of conditions. Visits to acupuncturists and massage therapists lasted about 60 minutes compared with 40 minutes for naturopathic physicians and less than 20 minutes for chiropractors. Most visits to chiropractors and naturopathic physicians, but less than one third of visits to acupuncturists and massage therapists, were covered by insurance. CONCLUSIONS: This information will help inform discussions of the roles CAM practitioners will play in the health care system of the future.