Assessment of chiropractic care on strength, balance, and endurance in active-duty U.S. military personnel with low back pain: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common cause of disability among U.S. military personnel. Approximately 20% of all diagnoses resulting in disability discharges are linked to back-related conditions. Because LBP can negatively influence trunk muscle strength, balance, and endurance, the military readiness of active-duty military personnel with LBP is potentially compromised. Chiropractic care may facilitate the strengthening of trunk muscles, the alteration of sensory and motor signaling, and a reduction in pain sensitivity, which may contribute to improving strength, balance, and endurance for individuals with LBP. This trial will assess the effects of chiropractic care on strength, balance, and endurance for active-duty military personnel with LBP. METHODS/DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial will allocate 110 active-duty military service members aged 18-40 with non-surgical acute, subacute, or chronic LBP with pain severity of ≥2/10 within the past 24 h. All study procedures are conducted at a single military treatment facility within the continental United States. Participants are recruited through recruitment materials approved by the institutional review board, such as posters and flyers, as well as through provider referrals. Group assignment occurs through computer-generated random allocation to either the study intervention (chiropractic care) or the control group (waiting list) for a 4-week period. Chiropractic care consists primarily of spinal manipulation at a frequency and duration determined by a chiropractic practitioner. Strength, balance, and endurance outcomes are obtained at baseline and after 4 weeks. The primary outcome is a change between baseline and 4 weeks of peak isometric strength, which is measured by pulling on a bimanual handle in a semi-squat position. Secondary outcomes include balance time during a single-leg standing test and trunk muscle endurance with the Biering-Sorensen test. Patient-reported outcomes include pain severity, disability measured with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, symptom bothersomeness, PROMIS-29, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, expectations of care, physical activity, and global improvement. DISCUSSION: This trial may help inform further research on biological mechanisms related to manual therapies employed by chiropractic practitioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02670148 Registered on 1 February 2016.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Per Capita Supply of Doctors of Chiropractic and Opioid Use in Younger Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the per-capita supply of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) or Medicare spending on chiropractic care was associated with opioid use among younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Using 2011 data, at the hospital referral region level, we correlated the per-capita supply of DCs and spending on chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) with several measures of per-capita opioid use by younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: Per-capita supply of DCs and spending on CMT were strongly inversely correlated with the percentage of younger Medicare beneficiaries who had at least 1, as well as with 6 or more, opioid prescription fills. Neither measure was correlated with mean daily morphine equivalents per opioid user or per chronic opioid user. CONCLUSIONS: A higher per-capita supply of DCs and Medicare spending on CMT were inversely associated with younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries obtaining an opioid prescription. However, neither measure was associated with opioid dosage among patients who obtained opioid prescriptions.

The Association Between Use of Chiropractic Care and Costs of Care Among Older Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multiple Comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) was associated with lower healthcare costs among multiply-comorbid Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of chronic low back pain (cLBP). METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study of 2006 to 2012 Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements for 72326 multiply-comorbid patients aged 66 and older with cLBP episodes and 1 of 4 treatment exposures: chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) alone, CMT followed or preceded by conventional medical care, or conventional medical care alone. We used propensity score weighting to address selection bias. RESULTS: After propensity score weighting, total and per-episode day Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare reimbursements during the cLBP treatment episode were lowest for patients who used CMT alone; these patients had higher rates of healthcare use for low back pain but lower rates of back surgery in the year following the treatment episode. Expenditures were greatest for patients receiving medical care alone; order was irrelevant when both CMT and medical treatment were provided. Patients who used only CMT had the lowest annual growth rates in almost all Medicare expenditure categories. While patients who used only CMT had the lowest Part A and Part B expenditures per episode day, we found no indication of lower psychiatric or pain medication expenditures associated with CMT. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that older multiply-comorbid patients who used only CMT during their cLBP episodes had lower overall costs of care, shorter episodes, and lower cost of care per episode day than patients in the other treatment groups. Further, costs of care for the episode and per episode day were lower for patients who used a combination of CMT and conventional medical care than for patients who did not use any CMT. These findings support initial CMT use in the treatment of, and possibly broader chiropractic management of, older multiply-comorbid cLBP patients.

Assessment of chiropractic treatment for active duty, U.S. military personnel with low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is highly prevalent and one of the most common causes of disability in U.S. armed forces personnel. Currently, no single therapeutic method has been established as a gold standard treatment for this increasingly prevalent condition. One commonly used treatment, which has demonstrated consistent positive outcomes in terms of pain and function within a civilian population is spinal manipulative therapy provided by doctors of chiropractic. Chiropractic care, delivered within a multidisciplinary framework in military healthcare settings, has the potential to help improve clinical outcomes for military personnel with low back pain. However, its effectiveness in a military setting has not been well established. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate changes in pain and disability in active duty service members with low back pain who are allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care versus treatment with usual medical care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial will enroll 750 active duty service members with low back pain at three military treatment facilities within the United States (250 from each site) who will be allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care or usual medical care alone for 6 weeks. Primary outcomes will include the numerical rating scale for pain intensity and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 6. Patient reported outcomes of pain, disability, bothersomeness, and back pain function will be collected at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks from allocation. DISCUSSION: Because low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability among U.S. military personnel, it is important to find pragmatic and conservative treatments that will treat low back pain and preserve low back function so that military readiness is maintained. Thus, it is important to evaluate the effects of the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care on low back pain and disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial discussed in this article was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the NCT01692275 Date of registration: 6 September 2012.

Comparing Propensity Score Methods for Creating Comparable Cohorts of Chiropractic Users and Nonusers in Older, Multiply Comorbid Medicare Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who use complementary and integrative health services like chiropractic manipulative treatment (CMT) often have different characteristics than do patients who do not, and these differences can confound attempts to compare outcomes across treatment groups, particularly in observational studies when selection bias may occur. The purposes of this study were to provide an overview on how propensity scoring methods can be used to address selection bias by balancing treatment groups on key variables and to use Medicare data to compare different methods for doing so. METHODS: We described 2 propensity score methods (matching and weighting). Then we used Medicare data from 2006 to 2012 on older, multiply comorbid patients who had a chronic low back pain episode to demonstrate the impact of applying methods on the balance of demographics of patients between 2 treatment groups (those who received only CMT and those who received no CMT during their episodes). RESULTS: Before application of propensity score methods, patients who used only CMT had different characteristics from those who did not. Propensity score matching diminished observed differences across the treatment groups at the expense of reduced sample size. However, propensity score weighting achieved balance in patient characteristics between the groups and allowed us to keep the entire sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although propensity score matching and weighting have similar effects in terms of balancing covariates, weighting has the advantage of maintaining sample size, preserving external validity, and generalizing more naturally to comparisons of 3 or more treatment groups. Researchers should carefully consider which propensity score method to use, as using different methods can generate different results.

Public Perceptions of Doctors of Chiropractic: Results of a National Survey and Examination of Variation According to Respondents' Likelihood to Use Chiropractic, Experience With Chiropractic, and Chiropractic Supply in Local Health Care Markets.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether general perceptions of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) varied according to likeliness to use chiropractic care, whether particular demographic characteristics were associated with chiropractic care use, and whether perception of DCs varied according to the per-capita supply of DCs in local health care markets. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of results from a 26-item nationally representative survey of 5422 members of The Gallup Panel that was conducted in the spring of 2015 (response rate, 29%) that sought to elicit the perceptions and use of DCs by US adults. We compared survey responses across: (1) respondents who had different likelihoods to use DCs for treatment of neck or back pain and (2) respondents who had different experiences using DCs. We linked respondents' zip codes to hospital referral regions for which we had the per-capita supply of DCs. Using the χ(2) test, we examined relationships between likeliness to use a DC, experience using a DC, respondent demographic variables, perceptions of DCs, and the per-capita supply of DCs in the local health care market. RESULTS: Most (61.4%) respondents believed that chiropractic care was effective at treating neck and back pain, 52.6% thought DCs were trustworthy, and 24.2% thought chiropractic care was dangerous; however, as respondents' likelihood to use a DC increased, perceptions of effectiveness and trustworthiness increased, and perceptions of danger decreased. Of all 5422 survey respondents, 744 or 13.7% indicated that they had seen a DC within the last 12 months. As one moved from distant to more recent experience using a DC, respondents were more likely to be female, married, white, and employed; those who had a distant history of using a DC were older and more likely to be retired than the other groups. A higher per-capita supply of DCs was associated with higher utilization rates and showed a more favorable regard for DCs. CONCLUSIONS: US adults often use chiropractic care, generally regard DCs favorably, and largely perceive that chiropractic care is safe. Where there is a higher per-capita supply of DCs in the local health care market, utilization and positive perceptions of chiropractic are higher.

Financial attitudes, knowledge, and habits of chiropractic students: A descriptive survey.

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to describe the financial knowledge, habits and attitudes of chiropractic students. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey to measure basic financial knowledge, current financial habits, risk tolerance, and beliefs about future income among 250 students enrolled in business courses at one US chiropractic college. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: We received 57 questionnaires (23% response rate). Most respondents would accumulate over $125,000 in student loan debt by graduation. Financial knowledge was low (mean 77%). Most respondents (72%) scored as average financial risk takers. Chiropractic students reported recommended short-term habits such as having checking accounts (90%) and health insurance (63%) or paying monthly bills (88%) and credit cards (60%). Few saved money for unplanned expenses (39%) or long-term goals (26%), kept written budgets (32%), or had retirement accounts (19%). CONCLUSION: These chiropractic students demonstrated inadequate financial literacy and did not engage in many recommended financial habits.

OBJECTIF: Notre but était de décrire les connaissances, les habitudes et les attitudes en matière de finances des étudiants en chiropratique. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons conçu une étude transversale pour mesurer les connaissances financières de base, les habitudes financières actuelles, la tolérance au risque, et les opinions sur les revenus futurs d'un groupe de 250 étudiants inscrits à des cours de commerce dans un collège de chiropratique aux États-Unis. Des analyses statistiques descriptives ont été effectuées. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons reçu 57 questionnaires (taux de réponse de 23 %). La plupart des répondants accumuleraient plus de 125 000 $ de dette en prêts aux étudiants avant d'obtenir leur diplôme. Le taux des connaissances financières est faible (moyenne de 77 %). La plupart des répondants (72 %) ont obtenu une note moyenne comme preneurs de risque financier. En ce qui concerne les habitudes recommandées à court terme, les étudiants en chiropratique ont signalé avoir des comptes chèques (90 %) et une assurance maladie (63 %), ou payer les factures (88 %) et les cartes de crédit (60 %) tous les mois. Peu disent économiser de l'argent pour des dépenses imprévues (39 %) ou pour des objectifs à long terme (26 %), maintenir des budgets écrits (32 %), ou avoir des comptes de retraite (19 %). CONCLUSION: Ces étudiants en chiropratique ont fait preuve de connaissances financières insuffisantes et d'un manque d'engagement dans de nombreuses habitudes financières recommandées.

Medicare's demonstration of expanded coverage for chiropractic services: limitations of the demonstration and an alternative direct cost estimate.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to examine the direct costs associated with Medicare's 2005-2007 "Demonstration of Expanded Coverage of Chiropractic Services" (Demonstration) and their drivers, to explore practice pattern variation during the Demonstration, and to describe scenarios of cost implications had provider behavior and benefit coverage been different. METHODS: Using Medicare Part B data from April 1, 2005, and March 31, 2007, and 2004 Rural Urban Continuum Codes, we conducted a retrospective analysis of traditionally reimbursed and expanded chiropractic services provided to patients aged 65 to 99 years who had a neuromusculoskeletal condition. We compared chiropractic care costs, supply, and utilization patterns for the 2-year periods before, during, and after the Demonstration for 5 Chicago area counties that participated in the Demonstration to those for 6 other county aggregations-urban or rural counties that participated in the Demonstration; were designated comparison counties during the Demonstration; or were neither participating nor comparison counties during the Demonstration. RESULTS: When compared with other groups, doctors of chiropractic in 1 region (Chicago area counties) billed more aggressively for expanded services and were reimbursed significantly more for traditionally reimbursed chiropractic services provided before, during, and after the Demonstration. Costs would have been substantially lower had doctors of chiropractic in this 1 region had responded similarly to those in other demonstration counties. CONCLUSION: We found widespread geographic variation in practice behavior and patterns. Our findings suggest that Medicare might reduce the risk of accelerated costs associated with the introduction of a new benefit by applying appropriate limits to the frequency of use and overall costs of those benefits, particularly in highly competitive markets.

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.

Cost of care for common back pain conditions initiated with chiropractic doctor vs medical doctor/doctor of osteopathy as first physician: experience of one Tennessee-based general health insurer.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine if there are differences in the cost of low back pain care when a patient is able to choose a course of treatment with a medical doctor (MD) versus a doctor of chiropractic (DC), given that his/her insurance provides equal access to both provider types. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was performed on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee's intermediate and large group fully insured population between October 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. The insured study population had open access to MDs and DCs through self-referral without any limit to the number of visits or differences in co-pays to these 2 provider types. Our analysis was based on episodes of care for low back pain. An episode was defined as all reimbursed care delivered between the first and the last encounter with a health care provider for low back pain. A 60 day window without an encounter was treated as a new episode. We compared paid claims and risk adjusted costs between episodes of care initiated with an MD with those initiated with a DC. RESULTS: Paid costs for episodes of care initiated with a DC were almost 40% less than episodes initiated with an MD. Even after risk adjusting each patient's costs, we found that episodes of care initiated with a DC were 20% less expensive than episodes initiated with an MD. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries in our sampling frame had lower overall episode costs for treatment of low back pain if they initiated care with a DC, when compared to those who initiated care with an MD.