An interprofessional approach to collaborative management of low-back pain in primary care: A scholarly analysis of a successful educational module for prelicensure learners.

OBJECTIVE: In 2008, an interprofessional education (IPE) working group was formed to develop a module on interdisciplinary low-back pain management to fill a curricular gap at our institution. This article describes the program evaluation outcomes and highlights factors contributing to its successful implementation over 8 years through reference to Brigg's Presage-Process-Product (3-P) Model of Teaching and Learning. METHODS: Program evaluation occurred through administration of a pre- and postmodule Health Professional Collaborative Competency Perception Scale, with scores compared using paired t tests. Descriptive statistics were analyzed from 5-point Likert scales for module session components. RESULTS: A total of 853 students from 9 health care occupations (medicine, chiropractic, physiotherapy, pharmacy, nursing, nurse practitioner, occupational therapy, physiotherapy assistants, and occupational therapist assistants) participated in 51 iterations of the module from 2011 to 2019, averaging 16 participants each session. All Health Professional Collaborative Competency Perception Scale items significantly improved from pre- to postintervention (p < .001) for learners from 6 health professions. Module components were rated highly, with the majority of learners rating these as 4 (helpful) or 5 (very helpful) for their learning. Participants also improved their scores in perceived history and physical exam comfort, knowledge of pharmacotherapy, management options, and attitudes regarding an interprofessional approach to back pain (p < .001). CONCLUSION: This article describes the presage, process factors, and products of this model IPE program that provides learners from various health care professions with an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the interdisciplinary management of low-back pain, as demonstrated through improvement in collaborative competencies.

Conservative Management of Cervical Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were randomized controlled trials, had at least one conservative treatment arm, and diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively. There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of acupuncture, prednisolone, cervical manipulation, and low-level laser therapy for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and thoracic manipulation and low-level laser therapy for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term. There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion. There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.

Intervention usage for the management of low back pain in a chiropractic teaching clinic.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous low back pain (LBP) clinical practice guidelines, published studies suggest guideline nonconcordant care is still offered. However, there is limited literature evaluating the degree to which chiropractors, particularly students, follow clinical practice guidelines when managing LBP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of use of specific interventions for LBP by students at a chiropractic teaching clinic, mapping recommended, not recommend, and without recommendation interventions based on two clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College teaching clinic with a new complaint of LBP from January to July 2019. Interventions provided under treatment plans for each patient were extracted. Interventions were classified as recommended, not recommended, or without recommendation according to two guidelines, the NICE and OPTIMa LBP guideline. RESULTS: 1000 patient files were identified with 377 files meeting the inclusion criteria. The most frequent interventions provided to patients were manipulation/mobilization (99%) and soft tissue therapy (91%). Exercise, localized percussion, and advice and/or education were included in just under half of the treatment plans. Patient files contained similar amounts of recommended (70%) and not recommended (80%) interventions according to the NICE guideline classification, with half the treatment plans including an intervention without recommendation. Under the OPTIMa acute guideline, patient files contained similar amounts of recommended and not recommended care, while more recommended care was provided than not recommended under the OPTIMa chronic guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite chiropractic interns providing guideline concordant care for the majority of LBP patients, interventions classified as not recommended and without recommendation are still frequently offered. This study provides a starting point to understand the treatment interventions provided by chiropractic interns. Further research should be conducted to improve our understanding of the use of LBP guideline recommended care in the chiropractic profession. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework # g74e8.

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191860.

Chiropractic students call for action against unsubstantiated claims.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus pandemic is a current global health crisis. Many chiropractic institutions, associations, and researchers have stepped up at a time of need. However, a subset of the chiropractic profession has claimed that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is clinically effective in improving one's immunity, despite the lack of supporting scientific evidence. These unsubstantiated claims contradict official public health policy reflecting poorly on the profession. The aim of this commentary is to provide our perspective on the claims regarding SMT and clinically relevant immunity enhancement, drawing attention to the damaging ramifications these claims might have on our profession's reputation. MAIN TEXT: The World Federation of Chiropractic released a rapid review demonstrating the lack of clinically relevant evidence regarding SMT and immunity enhancement. The current claims contradicting this review carry significant potential risk to patients. Furthermore, as a result of these misleading claims, significant media attention and public critiques of the profession are being made. We believe inaction by regulatory bodies will lead to confusion among the public and other healthcare providers, unfortunately damaging the profession's reputation. The resulting effect on the reputation of the profession is greatly concerning to us, as students. CONCLUSION: It is our hope that all regulatory bodies will protect the public by taking appropriate action against chiropractors making unfounded claims contradicting public health policy. We believe it is the responsibility of all stakeholders in the chiropractic profession to ensure this is carried out and the standard of care is raised. We call on current chiropractors to ensure a viable profession exists moving forward.