Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 25
Filter
1.
J Pain ; 25(8): 104506, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38484853

ABSTRACT

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal conditions impacting health care in the United States. The development of multimodal strategies of treatment is imperative in order to curb the growing incidence and prevalence of LBP. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), dry needling (DN), and exercise are common nonpharmacological treatments for LBP. This study is a 3-armed parallel-group design randomized clinical trial. We enrolled and randomized 96 participants with LBP into a multimodal strategy of treatment consisting of a combination of DN and SMT, DN only, and SMT only, followed by an at-home exercise program. All participants received 4 treatment sessions in the first 2 weeks followed by a 2-week home exercise program. Outcomes included clinical (Oswestry Disability Index, numeric pain intensity rating) and mechanistic (lumbar multifidus, erector spinae, and gluteus medius muscle activation) measures at baseline, 2, and 4 weeks. Participants in the DN and SMT groups showed larger effects and statistically significant improvement in pain and disability scores, and muscle percent thickness change at 2 weeks and 4 weeks of treatment when compared to the other groups. This study was registered prior to participant enrollment. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the process of developing an optimized multimodal treatment plan utilizing SMT, DN, and exercise to address the burden of LBP for impacted individuals and the health care system. This method could potentially help clinicians who treat LBP to lower initial pain and increase exercise compliance. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05802901).


Subject(s)
Dry Needling , Exercise Therapy , Low Back Pain , Manipulation, Spinal , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Dry Needling/methods , Female , Male , Manipulation, Spinal/methods , Adult , Middle Aged , Exercise Therapy/methods , Combined Modality Therapy , Pain Measurement , Outcome Assessment, Health Care
2.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 31(1): 15, 2023 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37264395

ABSTRACT

This commentary closes the thematic series "A new paradigm for musculoskeletal pain care: moving beyond structural impairments". The papers published in the series point to key aspects of shifting the paradigm of musculoskeletal care from clinician-led management often focused on addressing presumed structural anomalies to partnering with patients to find individual strategies that empower patients towards self-management. Several papers in the series highlighted the need for developing patient-centred models of care that respect individual patient's needs and preferences. Also, the series pointed to different options for modes of delivery including mHealth and the challenges and opportunities they present for developing person-centred strategies. For health care to provide effective support for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions, there is a need to recognise that contextual factors, including a strong patient-provider alliance, clearly play an important, perhaps primary, role. Health care professions dealing with musculoskeletal pain conditions should engage in research to investigate effective ways to move this understanding into practice including how to train providers. We hope the work collected in this series will stimulate further questions and more research as musculoskeletal pain providers seek to make their care more person-centred.


Subject(s)
Chiropractic , Manipulation, Chiropractic , Musculoskeletal Manipulations , Musculoskeletal Pain , Humans , Musculoskeletal Pain/therapy , Chiropractic/methods
3.
Pain Med ; 24(Suppl 1): S115-S125, 2023 08 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36069630

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Improving pain management for persons with chronic low back pain (LBP) undergoing surgery is an important consideration in improving patient-centered outcomes and reducing the risk of persistent opioid use after surgery. Nonpharmacological treatments, including physical therapy and mindfulness, are beneficial for nonsurgical LBP through complementary biopsychosocial mechanisms, but their integration and application for persons undergoing surgery for LBP have not been examined. This study (MIND-PT) is a multisite randomized trial that compares an enriched pain management (EPM) pathway that integrates physical therapy and mindfulness vs usual-care pain management (UC) for persons undergoing surgery for LBP. DESIGN: Participants from military treatment facilities will be enrolled before surgery and individually randomized to the EPM or UC pain management pathways. Participants assigned to EPM will receive presurgical biopsychosocial education and mindfulness instruction. After surgery, the EPM group will receive 10 sessions of physical therapy with integrated mindfulness techniques. Participants assigned to the UC group will receive usual pain management care after surgery. The primary outcome will be the pain impact, assessed with the Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity (PEG) scale. Time to opioid discontinuation is the main secondary outcome. SUMMARY: This trial is part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) initiative, which is focused on providing scientific solutions to the opioid crisis. The MIND-PT study will examine an innovative program combining nonpharmacological treatments designed to improve outcomes and reduce opioid overreliance in persons undergoing lumbar surgery.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Mindfulness , Humans , Mindfulness/methods , Analgesics, Opioid , Back Pain , Low Back Pain/surgery , Low Back Pain/psychology , Physical Therapy Modalities , Treatment Outcome , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
J Chiropr Med ; 21(2): 67-76, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35774633

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between early use of physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic care and incident opioid use and long-term opioid use in individuals with a low back pain (LBP) diagnosis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from Arkansas All Payers' Claims Database. Adults with incident LBP diagnosed in primary care or emergency departments between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017, were identified. Participants were required to be opioid naïve in the 6-month baseline period and without cancer, cauda equina syndrome, osteomyelitis, lumbar fracture, and paraplegia/quadriplegia in the entire study period. PT and chiropractic treatment were documented over the ensuing 30 days starting on the date of LBP. Any opioid use and long-term opioid use (LTOU) in 1-year follow-up were assessed. Multivariable logistic regressions controlling for covariates were estimated. Results: A total of 40 929 individuals were included in the final sample, with an average age of 41 years and 65% being women. Only 5% and 6% received PT and chiropractic service, respectively, within the first 30 days. Sixty-four percent had incident opioid use, and 4% had LTOU in the follow-up period. PT was not associated with incident opioid use (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.18) or LTOU (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45). Chiropractic care decreased the odds of opioid use (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97) and LTOU (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.77). Conclusion: In this study we found that receipt of chiropractic care, though not PT, may have disrupted the need for opioids and, in particular, LTOU in newly diagnosed LBP.

5.
J Transl Med ; 19(1): 357, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34407840

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of chronic pain conditions is growing. Low back pain was the primary cause of disability worldwide out of 156 conditions assessed between 1990 and 2016, according to the Global Burden of Disease Study. Conventional medical approaches have failed to identify effective and long-lasting approaches for the management of chronic pain, and often fail to consider the multiple domains that influence overall health and can contribute to the pain experience. Leading international organizations that focus on pain research have stated the importance of considering these other domains within holistic and multidisciplinary frameworks for treating pain. While the research behind the theoretical link between these domains and chronic pain outcomes has expanded greatly over the last decade, there have been few practical and feasible methods to implement this type of care in normal clinical practice. METHODS: The purpose of this manuscript is to describe an implementation protocol that is being used to deliver a complex holistic health intervention at multiple sites within a large government health system, as part of a larger multisite trial for patients with chronic low back pain. The Move to Health program developed by the US Army Medical Command was tailored for specific application to patients with low back pain and begins by providing an empirical link between eight different health domains (that include physical, emotional, social, and psychological constructs) and chronic low back pain. Through a six-step process, a health coach leverages motivational interviewing and information from a personal health inventory to guide the patient through a series of conversations about behavioral lifestyle choices. The patient chooses which domains they want to prioritize, and the health coach helps implement the plan with the use of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals and a series of resources for every domain, triaged from self-management to specialist referral. DISCUSSION: Complex interventions described in clinical trials are often challenging to implement because they lack sufficient details. Implementation protocols can improve the ability to properly deliver trial interventions into regular clinical practice with increased fidelity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Implementation of this intervention protocol was developed for a clinical trial that was registered a priori (clinicaltrials.gov #NCT04172038).


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Low Back Pain , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy
7.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 44(8): 621-636, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35305822

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether physical therapy use influenced subsequent use of musculoskeletal-related surgeries, injections, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and other imaging. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 to 64 years who had an ambulatory care visit at the University of Utah system, after implementation of the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems with adequate data collection in the system at the time of the data pull, between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. We identified patients (n = 85 186) who received care for a musculoskeletal condition (lower back pain, cervical, knee, shoulder, hip, elbow, ankle, wrist/hand, thoracic, and arthritis diagnoses). Regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between physical therapy use and medical care use while controlling for relevant factors. RESULTS: In patients referred to physical therapy (n = 15 870), physical therapy use (n = 3812) was associated with increased MRI use (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33; P < .001) and surgery use (incidence rate ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.23; P < .001). Several other factors were also associated with increased health care use, including being referred by an orthopedic provider, obesity, non-lower back pain diagnoses, and having 1 or more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Outpatient physical therapy use for musculoskeletal conditions in adult patients younger than 65 years at the University of Utah system, a mountain west United States academic health care system, was associated with increased rates of MRI and surgery. This finding is contrary to prior research suggesting that physical therapy improves outcomes in some diagnosis groups. A referral from an orthopedic provider, non-lower back pain diagnoses, and obesity were also associated with increased medical care utilization.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Musculoskeletal Diseases , Adult , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/diagnosis , Musculoskeletal Diseases/therapy , Obesity , Physical Therapy Modalities , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , United States
8.
Pain Med ; 21(Suppl 2): S73-S82, 2020 12 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33313724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Defense Health Agency has prioritized system-level pain management initiatives within the Military Health System (MHS), with low back pain as one of the key focus areas. A stepped care model focused on nonpharmacologic treatment to promote self-management is recommended. Implementation of stepped care is complicated by lack of information on the most effective nonpharmacologic strategies and how to sequence and tailor the various available options. The Sequential Multiple-Assignment Randomization Trial for Low Back Pain (SMART LBP) is a multisite pragmatic trial using a SMART design to assess the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments for chronic low back pain. DESIGN: This SMART trial has two treatment phases. Participants from three military treatment facilities are randomized to 6 weeks of phase I treatment, receiving either physical therapy (PT) or Army Medicine's holistic Move2Health (M2H) program in a package specific to low back pain. Nonresponders to treatment in phase I are again randomized to phase II treatment of combined M2H + PT or mindfulness-based treatment using the Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) program. The primary outcome is the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference computer-adapted test score. SUMMARY: This trial is part of an initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Defense to establish a national infrastructure for effective system-level management of chronic pain with a focus on nonpharmacologic treatments. The results of this study will provide important information on nonpharmacologic care for chronic LBP in the MHS embedded within a stepped care framework.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Low Back Pain , Military Health Services , Mindfulness , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Low Back Pain/therapy , Pain Management , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
9.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0242831, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33232379

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is among the nonpharmacologic interventions that has been recommended in clinical guidelines for patients with low back pain, however, some patients appear to benefit substantially more from SMT than others. Several investigations have examined potential factors to modify patients' responses prior to SMT application. The objective of this study was to determine if the baseline prediction of SMT responders can be improved through the use of a restricted, non-pragmatic methodology, established variables of responder status, and newly developed physical measures observed to change with SMT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prior study that provided two applications of standardized SMT over a period of 1 week. After initial exploratory analysis, principal component analysis and optimal scaling analysis were used to reduce multicollinearity among predictors. A multiple logistic regression model was built using a forward Wald procedure to explore those baseline variables that could predict response status at 1-week reassessment. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the 1-week reassessment (age 40.0± 11.8 years; 59.7% female). Response to treatment was predicted by a model containing the following 8 variables: height, gender, neck or upper back pain, pain frequency in the past 6 months, the STarT Back Tool, patients' expectations about medication and strengthening exercises, and extension status. Our model had a sensitivity of 72.2% (95% CI, 58.1-83.1), specificity of 84.2% (95% CI, 78.0-89.0), a positive likelihood ratio of 4.6 (CI, 3.2-6.7), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.3 (CI, 0.2-0.5), and area under ROC curve, 0.79. CONCLUSION: It is possible to predict response to treatment before application of SMT in low back pain patients. Our model may benefit both patients and clinicians by reducing the time needed to re-evaluate an initial trial of care.


Subject(s)
Chiropractic/methods , Low Back Pain/therapy , Manipulation, Spinal/methods , Spine/physiopathology , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/physiopathology , Male , Manipulation, Spinal/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Patients , Prognosis , Sports Medicine/trends , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
10.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 21(1): 293, 2020 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32393216

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a prevalent condition that causes a substantial health burden. Despite intensive and expensive clinical efforts, its prevalence is growing. Nonpharmacologic treatments are effective at improving pain-related outcomes; however, treatment effect sizes are often modest. Physical therapy (PT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have the most consistent evidence of effectiveness. Growing evidence also supports mindfulness-based approaches. Discussions with providers and patients highlight the importance of discussing and trying options to find the treatment that works for them and determining what to do when initial treatment is not successful. Herein, we present the protocol for a study that will evaluate evidence-based, protocol-driven treatments using PT, CBT, or mindfulness to examine comparative effectiveness and optimal sequencing for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: The Optimized Multidisciplinary Treatment Programs for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain (OPTIMIZE) Study will be a multisite, comparative effectiveness trial using a sequential multiple assessment randomized trial design enrolling 945 individuals with chronic low back pain. The co-primary outcomes will be disability (measured using the Oswestry Disability Index) and pain intensity (measured using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale). After baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to PT or CBT. At week 10, participants who have not experienced at least 50% improvement in disability will be randomized to cross-over phase-1 treatments (e.g., PT to CBT) or to Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). Treatment will consist of 8 weekly sessions. Long-term outcome assessments will be performed at weeks 26 and 52. DISCUSSION: Results of this study may inform referring providers and patients about the most effective nonoperative treatment and/or sequence of nonoperative treatments to treat chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on March 1, 2019, with Clinicaltrials.gov under the registration number NCT03859713 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03859713).


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/therapy , Exercise Therapy/methods , Low Back Pain/therapy , Mindfulness/methods , Musculoskeletal Manipulations/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pain Measurement , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic , Self Report , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
11.
BMJ Open ; 9(9): e028633, 2019 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31542740

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the association of initial provider treatment with early and long-term opioid use in a national sample of patients with new-onset low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of patients with new-onset LBP from 2008 to 2013. SETTING: The study evaluated outpatient and inpatient claims from patient visits, pharmacy claims and inpatient and outpatient procedures with initial providers seen for new-onset LBP. PARTICIPANTS: 216 504 individuals aged 18 years or older across the USA who were diagnosed with new-onset LBP and were opioid-naïve were included. Participants had commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance. EXPOSURES: The primary independent variable is type of initial healthcare provider including physicians and conservative therapists (physical therapists, chiropractors, acupuncturists). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term opioid use (within 30 days of the index visit) following new LBP visit and long-term opioid use (starting within 60 days of the index date and either 120 or more days' supply of opioids over 12 months, or 90 days or more supply of opioids and 10 or more opioid prescriptions over 12 months). RESULTS: Short-term use of opioids was 22%. Patients who received initial treatment from chiropractors or physical therapists had decreased odds of short-term and long-term opioid use compared with those who received initial treatment from primary care physicians (PCPs) (adjusted OR (AOR) (95% CI) 0.10 (0.09 to 0.10) and 0.15 (0.13 to 0.17), respectively). Compared with PCP visits, initial chiropractic and physical therapy also were associated with decreased odds of long-term opioid use in a propensity score matched sample (AOR (95% CI) 0.21 (0.16 to 0.27) and 0.29 (0.12 to 0.69), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Initial visits to chiropractors or physical therapists is associated with substantially decreased early and long-term use of opioids. Incentivising use of conservative therapists may be a strategy to reduce risks of early and long-term opioid use.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Low Back Pain/therapy , Medicare/statistics & numerical data , Physical Therapy Modalities/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Primary Health Care/standards , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , United States , Young Adult
12.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther ; 49(5): 310-319, 2019 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30759357

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with surgical fixation of ankle and/or hindfoot fractures often experience decreased range of motion and loss of function following surgery and postsurgical immobilization, yet there is minimal evidence to guide care for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether manual therapy may provide short-term improvements in range of motion, muscle stiffness, gait, and balance in patients who undergo operative fixation of an ankle and/or hindfoot fracture. METHODS: In this multisite, double-blind randomized clinical trial, 72 consecutive patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation of an ankle and/or hindfoot fracture and were receiving physical therapy treatment of exercise and gait training were randomized to receive either impairment-based manual therapy (manual therapy group) or a sham manual therapy treatment of light soft tissue mobilization and proximal tibiofibular joint mobilizations (control group). Participants in both groups received 3 treatment sessions over 7 to 10 days, and outcomes were assessed immediately post intervention. Outcomes included ankle joint range of motion, muscle stiffness, gait characteristics, and balance measures. Group-by-time effects were compared using linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the manual therapy and control groups for range of motion, gait, or balance outcomes. There was a significant difference from baseline to the final follow-up in resting gastrocnemius muscle stiffness between the manual therapy and control groups (-47.9 N/m; 95% confidence interval: -86.1, -9.8; P = .01). There was no change in muscle stiffness for the manual therapy group between baseline and final follow-up, whereas muscle stiffness increased in the control group by 6.4%. CONCLUSION: A brief course of manual therapy consisting of 3 treatment sessions over 7 to 10 days did not lead to better short-term improvement than the application of sham manual therapy for most clinical outcomes in patients after ankle and/or hindfoot fracture who were already being treated with exercise and gait training. Our results, however, suggest that manual therapy might decrease aberrant resting muscle stiffness after ankle and/or hindfoot surgical fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 2. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(5):310-319. Epub 13 Feb 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8864.


Subject(s)
Ankle Fractures/rehabilitation , Ankle Fractures/surgery , Foot Injuries/rehabilitation , Foot Injuries/surgery , Fracture Fixation, Internal , Musculoskeletal Manipulations , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Disability Evaluation , Double-Blind Method , Female , Gait , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement , Postural Balance , Range of Motion, Articular , Young Adult
13.
Pain Med ; 20(3): 476-485, 2019 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30412232

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Stepped care approaches are emphasized in guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, recommending less invasive or risky evidence-based intervention, such as manual therapy (MT), before more aggressive interventions such as opioid prescriptions. The order and timing of care can alter recovery trajectories. OBJECTIVE: To compare one-year downstream health care utilization in patients with spine or shoulder disorders who received only MT vs MT and opioids. The secondary aim was to compare differences based on order and timing of opioids and MT. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. METHODS: Patients with an initial consultation for a spine or shoulder disorder who received at least one visit for MT were included. Person-level data from the Military Health System Management and Reporting Tool (M2) database were aggregated by a senior health care analyst at Madigan Army Medical Center. Groups were created based on the order and timing of interventions provided. Outcomes included health care utilization (medical costs and visits) over the year following initial consultation. Control measures included metabolic, mental health, chronic pain, sleep, and substance abuse comorbidities, as well as prior opioid prescriptions. Generalized linear models with gamma log links were run due to the heavily skewed nature of cost data. RESULTS: From 1,876 unique patients with spine or shoulder disorders receiving MT, 1,162 (61.9%) also received prescription opioids. Mean one-year costs in the MT-only group ($5,410, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $5,109 to $5,730) were significantly lower than in the MT+opioid group ($10,498, 95% CI = $10,043 to $10,973). When patients had both treatments, mean one-year costs in the MT-first ($10,782, 95% CI = $10,050 to $11,567) were significantly lower (P = 0.030) than opioid-first ($11,938, 95% CI = $11,272 to $12,643), and MT-first had a significantly lower mean days' supply of opioids (34.2 vs 70.9, P < 0.001) and mean number of unique opioid prescriptions (3.1 vs 6.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MT alone resulted in lower downstream costs than with opioid prescriptions. Both the order of treatment (MT before opioid prescriptions) and the timing of treatment (MT < 30 days) resulted in a significant reduction of resources (costs, visits, and opioid utilization) in the year after initial consultation. Clinicians should consider the implications of first-choice decisions and the timing of care for treatment choices utilized for patients with spine and shoulder disorders.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Back Pain/therapy , Musculoskeletal Manipulations/methods , Pain Management/methods , Shoulder Pain/therapy , Adult , Analgesics, Opioid/economics , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Musculoskeletal Manipulations/economics , Pain Management/economics , Retrospective Studies
14.
Lancet ; 391(10137): 2368-2383, 2018 06 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29573872

ABSTRACT

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain/prevention & control , Low Back Pain/prevention & control , Pain Management/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , United States Public Health Service/standards , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Diagnostic Imaging/economics , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Low Back Pain/economics , Low Back Pain/surgery , Low Back Pain/therapy , Male , Pain Management/economics , United States/epidemiology
16.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil ; 99(1): 72-81, 2018 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28712922

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of manipulative treatment for shoulder and spine conditions among various provider types. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. SETTING: Single military hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive sample of patients (N=7566) seeking care for an initial spine or shoulder condition from January 1 to December 31, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Manipulative treatment (eg, manual therapy, spinal and joint manipulation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Manipulation treatment was identified with procedure billing codes in the medical records. Spine and shoulder conditions were identified by using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes. All data were abstracted from the Department of Defense Military Health System Management and Analysis Tool. RESULTS: Of 7566 total patients seeking care, 2014 (26.6%) received manipulative treatment at least once, and 1883 of those received this treatment in a military facility (24.7%). Manipulative treatment was used most often for thoracic conditions and least often for shoulder conditions (50.8% and 24.2% of all patients). There was a total of 6706 unique medical visits with a manipulative treatment procedure (average of 3.3 manipulative treatment procedure visits per patient). CONCLUSIONS: Manipulative treatment utilization rates for shoulder and spine conditions ranged from 26.6% to 50.2%. Chiropractors used manipulation the most and physical therapists the least.


Subject(s)
Hospitals, Military/statistics & numerical data , Manipulation, Chiropractic/statistics & numerical data , Manipulation, Spinal/statistics & numerical data , Musculoskeletal Diseases/therapy , Adult , Cervical Vertebrae , Chiropractic/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Lumbar Vertebrae , Male , Manipulation, Chiropractic/adverse effects , Manipulation, Spinal/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Physical Therapy Specialty/statistics & numerical data , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Shoulder , Thoracic Vertebrae , United States
17.
J Eval Clin Pract ; 22(2): 247-52, 2016 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26417660

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Low back pain (LBP) care can involve many providers. The provider chosen for entry into care may predict future health care utilization and costs. The objective of this study was to explore associations between entry settings and future LBP-related utilization and costs. METHODS: A retrospective review of claims data identified new entries into health care for LBP. We examined the year after entry to identify utilization outcomes (imaging, surgeon or emergency visits, injections, surgery) and total LBP-related costs. Multivariate models with inverse probability weighting on propensity scores were used to evaluate relationships between utilization and cost outcomes with entry setting. RESULTS: 747 patients were identified (mean age = 38.2 (± 10.7) years, 61.2% female). Entry setting was primary care (n = 409, 54.8%), chiropractic (n = 207, 27.7%), physiatry (n = 83, 11.1%) and physical therapy (n = 48, 6.4%). Relative to primary care, entry in physiatry increased risk for radiographs (OR = 3.46, P = 0.001), advanced imaging (OR = 3.38, P < 0.001), injections (OR = 4.91, P < 0.001), surgery (OR = 4.76, P = 0.012) and LBP-related costs (standardized Β = 0.67, P < 0.001). Entry in chiropractic was associated with decreased risk for advanced imaging (OR = 0.21, P = 0.001) or a surgeon visit (OR = 0.13, P = 0.005) and increased episode of care duration (standardized Β = 0.51, P < 0.001). Entry in physical therapy decreased risk of radiographs (OR = 0.39, P = 0.017) and no patient entering in physical therapy had surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Entry setting for LBP was associated with future health care utilization and costs. Consideration of where patients chose to enter care may be a strategy to improve outcomes and reduce costs.


Subject(s)
Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/therapy , Manipulation, Chiropractic/statistics & numerical data , Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Health Care Costs , Health Services/economics , Humans , Insurance Claim Review , Low Back Pain/diagnostic imaging , Low Back Pain/economics , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
18.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther ; 45(12): 975-83, 2015 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26416334

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: A factorial randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the addition of manual therapy to exercise therapy for the reduction of pain and increase of physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA), and whether "booster sessions" compared to consecutive sessions may improve outcomes. BACKGROUND: The benefits of providing manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy, or of distributing treatment sessions over time using periodic booster sessions, in people with knee OA are not well established. METHODS: All participants had knee OA and were provided 12 sessions of multimodal exercise therapy supervised by a physical therapist. Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups: exercise therapy in consecutive sessions, exercise therapy distributed over a year using booster sessions, exercise therapy plus manual therapy without booster sessions, and exercise therapy plus manual therapy with booster sessions. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC score; 0-240 scale) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the numeric pain-rating scale and physical performance tests. RESULTS: Of 75 participants recruited, 66 (88%) were retained at 1-year follow-up. Factorial analysis of covariance of the main effects showed significant benefit from booster sessions (P = .009) and manual therapy (P = .023) over exercise therapy alone. Group analysis showed that exercise therapy with booster sessions (WOMAC score, -46.0 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -80.0, -12.0) and exercise therapy plus manual therapy (WOMAC score, -37.5 points; 95% CI: -69.7, -5.5) had superior effects compared with exercise therapy alone. The combined strategy of exercise therapy plus manual therapy with booster sessions was not superior to exercise therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Distributing 12 sessions of exercise therapy over a year in the form of booster sessions was more effective than providing 12 consecutive exercise therapy sessions. Providing manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy improved treatment effectiveness compared to providing 12 consecutive exercise therapy sessions alone. Trial registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612000460808).


Subject(s)
Exercise Therapy , Musculoskeletal Manipulations/methods , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain/prevention & control , Aged , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Osteoarthritis, Knee/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome
19.
Chiropr Man Therap ; 20(1): 19, 2012 Jun 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22726639

ABSTRACT

Clinical decision rules are an increasingly common presence in the biomedical literature and represent one strategy of enhancing clinical-decision making with the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare delivery. In the context of rehabilitation research, clinical decision rules have been predominantly aimed at classifying patients by predicting their treatment response to specific therapies. Traditionally, recommendations for developing clinical decision rules propose a multistep process (derivation, validation, impact analysis) using defined methodology. Research efforts aimed at developing a "diagnosis-based clinical decision rule" have departed from this convention. Recent publications in this line of research have used the modified terminology "diagnosis-based clinical decision guide." Modifications to terminology and methodology surrounding clinical decision rules can make it more difficult for clinicians to recognize the level of evidence associated with a decision rule and understand how this evidence should be implemented to inform patient care. We provide a brief overview of clinical decision rule development in the context of the rehabilitation literature and two specific papers recently published in Chiropractic and Manual Therapies.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL