Association between chiropractic spinal manipulation and cauda equina syndrome in adults with low back pain: Retrospective cohort study of US academic health centers.

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a lumbosacral surgical emergency that has been associated with chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) in case reports. However, identifying if there is a potential causal effect is complicated by the heightened incidence of CES among those with low back pain (LBP). The study hypothesis was that there would be no increase in the risk of CES in adults with LBP following CSM compared to a propensity-matched cohort following physical therapy (PT) evaluation without spinal manipulation over a three-month follow-up period. METHODS: A query of a United States network (TriNetX, Inc.) was conducted, searching health records of more than 107 million patients attending academic health centers, yielding data ranging from 20 years prior to the search date (July 30, 2023). Patients aged 18 or older with LBP were included, excluding those with pre-existing CES, incontinence, or serious pathology that may cause CES. Patients were divided into two cohorts: (1) LBP patients receiving CSM or (2) LBP patients receiving PT evaluation without spinal manipulation. Propensity score matching controlled for confounding variables associated with CES. RESULTS: 67,220 patients per cohort (mean age 51 years) remained after propensity matching. CES incidence was 0.07% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.05-0.09%) in the CSM cohort compared to 0.11% (95% CI: 0.09-0.14%) in the PT evaluation cohort, yielding a risk ratio and 95% CI of 0.60 (0.42-0.86; p = .0052). Both cohorts showed a higher rate of CES during the first two weeks of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that CSM is not a risk factor for CES. Considering prior epidemiologic evidence, patients with LBP may have an elevated risk of CES independent of treatment. These findings warrant further corroboration. In the meantime, clinicians should be vigilant to identify LBP patients with CES and promptly refer them for surgical evaluation.

Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. METHODS: Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Development of a low back pain care pathway in an academic hospital system: results of a consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a significant component of healthcare expenditures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been highlighted as a key resource to improve the quality of care. This study aimed to develop a clinical pathway for LBP based on CPGs in an academic health system. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi study of clinicians caring for patients with LBP who were asked to rate 21 CPG-informed seed statements through an online survey. The goal was to identify statements that achieved a minimum of 80% consensus among panelists. RESULTS: Thirty-five healthcare providers participated as panelists. The majority of participants were male (68.6%), had MD or DO (62.9%) degrees, and were clinicians (73.8%) working in neurosurgery (36.1%), orthopedics (25.7%), emergency medicine (14.3%), or physical therapy (11.4%). Initially, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 seed statements. One statement did not reach consensus in the initial round and was revised into two separate statements based on feedback from panelists. One of these statements achieved consensus in the second review round. All statements reaching consensus were incorporated into a care pathway consisting of diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for LBP. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers across various disciplines supported statements interpreting current CPGs related to care for LBP. This study represents a step toward supporting guideline-concordant care for LBP. Additional research is needed to assess how such pathways impact actual clinical care.

Chiropractic Day 2023: A Report and Qualitative Analysis of How Thought Leaders Celebrate the Present and Envision the Future of Chiropractic.

Objective: This study aimed to (1) collect and analyze statements about how to celebrate chiropractic in the present and roles that chiropractors may fulfill in the future, (2) identify if there was congruence among the themes between present and future statements, and (3) offer a model about the chiropractic profession that captures its complex relationships that encompass its interactions within microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels. Methods: For this qualitative analysis, we used pattern and grounded theory approaches. A purposive sample of thought leaders in the chiropractic profession were invited to answer the following 2 open-ended questions: (1) envision the chiropractor of the future, and (2) recommendations on how to celebrate chiropractic. Information was collected during April 2023 using Survey Monkey. The information was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed for topic clusters, which resulted in matching concepts with social-ecological themes. The themes between the responses to the 2 questions were analyzed for congruence. We used the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research to report our findings. Results: Of the 54 experts invited, 32 (59%) participated. Authors represented 7 countries and have a median of 32 years of chiropractic experience, with a range of 5 to 51 years. Nineteen major topics in the future statements and 23 major topics in statements about celebrating chiropractic were combined in a model. The topics were presented using the 4 levels of the social-ecological framework. Individual (microsystem): chiropractors are competent, well-educated experts in spine and musculoskeletal care who apply evidence-based practices, which is a combination of the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. Interpersonal relationships (mesosystem): chiropractors serve the best interests of their patients, provide person-centered care, embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, consider specific health needs and the health of the whole person. Community (exosystem): chiropractors provide care within integrated health care environments and in private practices, serve the best interests of the public through participation in their communities, participate through multidisciplinary collaboration with and within the health care system, and work together as a profession with a strong professional identity. Societal (macrosystem): chiropractors contribute to the greater good of society and participate on a global level in policy, leadership, and research. There was concordance between both the future envisioning statements and the present celebration recommendations, which suggest logical validity based on the congruence of these concepts. Conclusion: A sample of independent views, including the perceptions from a broad range of chiropractic thought leaders from various backgrounds, philosophies, diversity characteristics, and world regions, were assembled to create a comprehensive model of the chiropractic profession. The resulting model shows an array of intrinsic values and provides the roles that chiropractors may provide to serve patients and the public. This study offers insights into the roles that future chiropractors may fulfill and how these are congruent with present-day values. These core concepts and this novel model may have utility during dialogs about identity, applications regarding chiropractic in policy, practice, education, and research, and building positive relationships and collaborations.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a single-arm, pragmatic, pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for U.S. veterans with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Over 25% of veterans seeking care at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities have chronic low back pain (LBP), with high rates of mental health comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection to prepare for the subsequent randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for pain management of veterans with chronic low back pain. The secondary objectives were to estimate effect sizes and variability of the primary outcome and choose secondary outcomes for the full-scale trial. METHODS: This single-arm pilot trial enrolled 40 veterans with chronic LBP at one Veterans Health Administration facility for a 10-week course of pragmatic multimodal chiropractic care. Recruitment was by (1) provider referral, (2) invitational letter from the electronic health record pre-screening, and (3) standard direct recruitment. We administered patient-reported outcome assessments through an email link to REDCap, an electronic data capture platform, at baseline and 5 additional timepoints. Retention was tracked through adherence to the treatment plan and completion rates of outcome assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics and outcome variables. RESULTS: We screened 91 veterans over 6 months to enroll our goal of 40 participants. Seventy percent were recruited through provider referrals. Mean age (range) was 53 (22-79) years and 23% were female; 95% had mental health comorbidities. The mean number of chiropractic visits was 4.5 (1-7). Participants adhered to their treatment plan, with exception of 3 who attended only their first visit. All participants completed assessments at the in-person baseline visit and 80% at the week 10 final endpoint. We had no issues administering assessments via REDCap. We observed clinically important improvements on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [mean change (SD): 3.6 (6.1)] and on PROMIS® pain interference [mean change (SD): 3.6 (5.6)], which will be our primary and key secondary outcome, respectively, for the full-scale trial. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection for conducting a pragmatic clinical trial of chiropractic care in a Veterans Health Administration facility. Using the pilot data and lessons learned, we modified and refined a protocol for a full-scale, multisite, pragmatic, National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for veterans with chronic LBP that began recruitment in February 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a qualitative study with veteran stakeholders from a pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common among military veterans seeking treatment in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities. As chiropractic services within VA expand, well-designed pragmatic trials and implementation studies are needed to assess clinical effectiveness and program uptake. This study evaluated veteran stakeholder perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of care delivery and research processes in a pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for chronic LBP. METHODS: The qualitative study was completed within a mixed-method, single-arm, pragmatic, pilot clinical trial of chiropractic care for LBP conducted in VA chiropractic clinics. Study coordinators completed semi-structured, in person or telephone interviews with veterans near the end of the 10-week trial. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis using a directed approach explored salient themes related to trial implementation and delivery of chiropractic services. RESULTS: Of 40 participants, 24 completed interviews (60% response; 67% male gender; mean age 51.7 years). Overall, participants considered the trial protocol and procedures feasible and reported that the chiropractic care and recruitment methods were acceptable. Findings were organized into 4 domains, 10 themes, and 21 subthemes. Chiropractic service delivery domain encompassed 3 themes/8 subthemes: scheduling process (limited clinic hours, scheduling future appointments, attendance barriers); treatment frequency (treatment sufficient for LBP complaint, more/less frequent treatments); and chiropractic clinic considerations (hire more chiropractors, including female chiropractors; chiropractic clinic environment; patient-centered treatment visits). Outcome measures domain comprised 3 themes/4 subthemes: questionnaire burden (low burden vs. time-consuming or repetitive); relevance (items relevant for LBP study); and timing and individualization of measures (questionnaire timing relative to symptoms, personalized approach to outcomes measures). The online data collection domain included 2 themes/4 subthemes: user concerns (little difficulty vs. form challenges, required computer skills); and technology issues (computer/internet access, junk mail). Clinical trial planning domain included 2 themes/5 subthemes: participant recruitment (altruistic service by veterans, awareness of chiropractic availability, financial compensation); and communication methods (preferences, potential barriers). CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study highlighted veteran stakeholders' perceptions of VA-based chiropractic services and offered important suggestions for conducting a full-scale, veteran-focused, randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for chronic LBP in this clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719.

Health-Related Quality of Life Among United States Service Members with Low Back Pain Receiving Usual Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Care Alone: Secondary Outcomes of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v1.0 outcomes of chiropractic care in a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial and compares the PROMIS measures to: 1) worst pain intensity from a numerical pain rating 0-10 scale, 2) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and 3) global improvement (modified visual analog scale). DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC). SETTING: Three military treatment facilities. SUBJECTS: 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. METHODS: Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change. RESULTS: We found statistically significant mean group differences favoring UMC+CC for all PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ score. Area under the curve estimates for global improvement for the PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ, ranged from 0.79 to 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this pre-planned secondary analysis demonstrate that chiropractic care impacts health-related quality of life beyond pain and pain-related disability. Further, comparable findings were found between the 24-item RMDQ and the PROMIS®-29 v1.0 briefer scales.

Characteristics of Chiropractic Patients in the Veterans Health Administration During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient characteristics were associated with face-to-face (F2F) and telehealth visits for those receiving chiropractic care for musculoskeletal conditions in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of all patients (veterans, dependents, and spouses) who received chiropractic care nationwide at the VHA from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, was performed. Patients were allocated into 1 of the following 3 groups: only telehealth visits, only F2F visits, and combined F2F and telehealth visits. Patient characteristics included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Multinomial logistic regression estimated associations of these variables with visit type. RESULTS: The total number of unique patients seen by chiropractors between March 2020 and February 2021 was 62 658. Key findings were that patients of non-White race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were more likely to attend telehealth-only visits (Black [odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval {1.10-1.31}], other races [1.36 {1.16-1.59}], and Hispanic or Latino [1.35 {1.20-1.52}]) and combination telehealth and F2F care (Black [1.32 {1.25-1.40}], other races [1.37 {1.23-1.52}], and Hispanic or Latino [1.63 {1.51-1.76}]). Patients younger than 40 years of age were more likely to choose telehealth visits ([1.13 {1.02-1.26}], 66-75 years [1.17 {1.01-1.35}], and >75 years [1.26 {1.06-1.51}] vs those 40-55 years of age). Sex, visit frequency, and Charlson Comorbidity Index showed significant relationships as well, while marital status did not. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA patients with musculoskeletal complaints using chiropractic telehealth were more ethnically and racially diverse than those using F2F care alone.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria. METHODS: We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions. RESULTS: Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

Patient-Reported Physician Treatment Recommendations and Compliance Among U.S. Adults with Low Back Pain.

Objectives: Numerous recently published clinical care guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) Guideline for Low Back Pain (LBP), call for nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. However, little data exist regarding the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted by patients and medical doctors. The study objective was to determine patient-reported treatment recommendations by medical doctors for LBP and patient compliance with those recommendations. Design: This study used a cross-sectional web and mail survey. Settings/Location: The study was conducted among Gallup Panel members across the United States. Subjects: Survey participants included 5377 U.S. adults randomly selected among Gallup Panel members. Of those, 545 reported a visit to a medical doctor within the past year for low back pain and were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding treatment recommendations. Interventions: Participants were asked about medical doctor recommendations for both drug (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, and cortisone injections) and nondrug (self-care treatments, massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and physical therapy) treatments. Outcome Measures: Participants were asked to indicate if their medical doctor recommended each drug and nondrug therapy for their LBP and if they had followed each of those treatment recommendations. Results: Ninety-six percent of patients who visited a medical doctor for LBP received a recommendation for one or more pain treatments, with 81% reporting that their medical doctor recommended both drug and nondrug therapies. Seventy-six percent of respondents were recommended acetaminophen or NSAIDs, 79% were recommended self-care treatments, 37% were recommended massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation, and 60% were recommended physical therapy. Nearly two-thirds of our sample reported that their doctor had recommended prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, or cortisone injections. Reported adherence to treatment recommendations ranged from 68% for acupuncture to 94% for NSAIDs. Conclusions: One year after publication of the ACP's Guideline on LBP, patients report that medical doctors recommended both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment approaches to patients with LBP. In the majority of cases, a combination of prescription medications and self-care were recommended, illustrating the need for additional research on the effectiveness of multi-modal treatment strategies. Patients reported that they were largely compliant with medical doctor recommendations, underscoring the influence that medical doctors have in directing patient care for LBP. These findings indicate that further work is also needed to explore the impact of personal experience, training, clinical evidence, sociocultural factors, and health plans on medical doctors therapeutic recommendations in the context of back pain.

Visit Frequency and Outcomes for Patients Using Ongoing Chiropractic Care for Chronic Low-Back and Neck Pain: An Observational Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent and long-lasting. Although provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies, such as chiropractic care, have been recommended, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding long-term use of this care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between visit frequency and outcomes for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: Observational 3-month longitudinal study. SETTING: Data collected from patients of 124 chiropractic clinics in 6 United States regions. METHODS: We examined the impact of visit frequency and patient characteristics on pain (pain 0-10 numeric rating scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for low-back pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI] for neck pain, both 0-100 scale) using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a large national sample of chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or chronic neck pain (CNP). This study was approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03162952. RESULTS: One thousand, three hundred, sixty-two patients with CLBP and 1,214 with CNP were included in a series of HLM models. Unconditional (time-only) models showed patients on average had mild pain and function, and significant, but slight improvements in these over the 3-month observation period: back and neck pain decreased by 0.40 and 0.44 points, respectively; function improved by 2.7 (ODI) and 3.0 points (NDI) (all P < 0.001). Adding chiropractic visit frequency to the models revealed that those with worse baseline pain and function used more visits, but only visits more than once per week for those with CLBP were associated with significantly better improvement. These relationships remained when other types of visits and baseline patient characteristics were included. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study based on self-reported data from a sample representative of chiropractic patients, but not all patients with CLBP or CNP. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-month window on chiropractic patients with CLBP and/or CNP revealed that they were improving, although slowly; may have reached maximum therapeutic improvement; and are possibly successfully managing their chronic pain using a variety of chiropractic visit frequencies. These results may inform payers when building coverage policies for ongoing chiropractic care for patients with chronic pain.

Chiropractic Services and Diagnoses for Low Back Pain in 3 U.S. Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities: A Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnoses and chiropractic services performed by doctors of chiropractic operating within 3 military treatment facilities for patients with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a descriptive secondary analysis of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) plus chiropractic care to UMC alone for U.S. active-duty military personnel with LBP. Participants who were allocated to receive UMC plus 6 weeks of chiropractic care and who attended at least 1 chiropractic visit (n = 350; 1547 unique visits) were included in this analysis. International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes were transcribed from chiropractic treatment paper forms. The number of participants receiving each diagnosis and service and the number of each service on unique visits was tabulated. Low back pain and co-occurring diagnoses were grouped into neuropathic, nociceptive, bone and/or joint, general pain, and nonallopathic lesions categories. Services were categorized as evaluation, active interventions, and passive interventions. RESULTS: The most reported pain diagnoses were lumbalgia (66.1%) and thoracic pain (6.6%). Most reported neuropathic pain diagnoses were sciatica (4.9%) and lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis (2.9%). For the nociceptive pain, low back sprain and/or strain (15.8%) and lumbar facet syndrome (9.2%) were most common. Most reported diagnoses in the bone and/or joint category were intervertebral disc degeneration (8.6%) and spondylosis (6.0%). Tobacco use disorder (5.7%) was the most common in the other category. Chiropractic care was compromised of passive interventions (94%), with spinal manipulative therapy being the most common, active interventions (77%), with therapeutic exercise being most common, and a combination of passive and active interventions (72%). CONCLUSION: For the sample in this study, doctors of chiropractic within 3 military treatment facilities diagnosed, managed, and provided clinical evaluations for a range of LBP conditions. Although spinal manipulation was the most commonly used modality, chiropractic care included a multimodal approach, comprising of both active and passive interventions a majority of the time.

Changes in the Use of Telehealth and Face-To-Face Chiropractic Care in the Department of Veterans Affairs Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the use of face-to-face and telehealth chiropractic care in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of VHA administrative data, including monthly numbers of unique patients and visits for face-to-face and telehealth (synchronous video or telephone) chiropractic care from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. RESULTS: During the pre-pandemic phase (October 2019 to February 2020), a mean of 28 930 (SD 289) total monthly visits were conducted face-to-face (99.9%). In March 2020, total monthly visits decreased to 17.0% of the pre-pandemic average, 25.0% being face-to-face, with over a 200-fold increase in telehealth visits (rising to 1331 visits) compared to the pre-pandemic average. April showed the lowest number of face-to-face visits at (4094). May-October 2020 showed that face-to-face visits increase on average by 70.7% per month, while telehealth visits averaged 17.3% per month. October-February 2020 had total monthly visits plateau at a mean of 22 250 (76.9% of the pre-pandemic average). Telehealth visits reduced to a mean of 1245 monthly visits over this 5-month period, a drop of -5.6% of the average of monthly visits. In March 2021, total monthly visits (31 221) exceeded the pre-pandemic average for the first time since January 2020; 4.0% remained in telehealth. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face visits decreased early in the pandemic but increased after May 2020. Chiropractic telehealth use rapidly increased during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, and decreased later, but remained slightly higher than pre-pandemic levels.

Characteristics and Practice Patterns of U.S. Veterans Health Administration Doctors of Chiropractic: A Cross-sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) chiropractors to assess current demographic and professional characteristics, including practice parameters, interprofessional collaboration, academic experience, and scholarly activity. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed from August 21, 2019, to September 6, 2019, including all chiropractors identified with any VA appointment. REDCap software was used to conduct the survey. Data from surveys were exported to Microsoft Excel for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 177 providers solicited, 118 returned completed surveys (67% response rate). Respondents predominantly self-reported as white (84%) and male (77.1%), with a mean age of 47 years, and reported spending at least 75% of time on clinical care. Most respondents reported being VA employees (96%) with full-time appointments (94%). Approximately half reported having prior hospital training (48%), supervising chiropractic students (53%) and students in other health professions (47%), and authoring or coauthoring ≥1 peer-reviewed publications (42%). Respondents reported performing an average of 6 to 15 new-patient consultations and 31 to 60 follow-up visits per week. Most patient referrals to chiropractic care originated from primary care providers, with low back conditions without radiculopathy as the most frequently seen condition. Diversified manipulation and flexion-distraction techniques, along with myofascial therapies, therapeutic exercises, and self-management advice, were the most commonly reported interventions. CONCLUSION: We report provider and practice characteristics from chiropractors working in a large, integrated health care system. Most are full-time employees, work in physical medicine departments, and have held their position for up to 5 years. The majority of respondents report diagnostic and treatment approaches concordant with current clinical practice guidelines.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT): Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in veterans. Chiropractic care is a well-integrated, nonpharmacological therapy in Veterans Affairs health care facilities, where doctors of chiropractic provide therapeutic interventions focused on the management of low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. However, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic care in terms of the number and frequency of treatment visits needed for optimal outcomes in veterans with low back pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic, parallel-group randomized trial at four Veterans Affairs sites will include 766 veterans with chronic low back pain who are randomly allocated to a course of low-dose (one to five visits) or higher-dose (eight to 12 visits) chiropractic care for 10 weeks (Phase 1). After Phase 1, participants within each treatment arm will again be randomly allocated to receive either monthly chiropractic chronic pain management for 10 months or no scheduled chiropractic visits (Phase 2). Assessments will be collected electronically. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire will be the primary outcome for Phase 1 at week 10 and Phase 2 at week 52. SUMMARY: This trial will provide evidence to guide the chiropractic dose in an initial course of care and an extended-care approach for veterans with chronic low back pain. Accurate information on the effectiveness of different dosing regimens of chiropractic care can greatly assist health care facilities, including Veterans Affairs, in modeling the number of doctors of chiropractic that will best meet the needs of patients with chronic low back pain.

Effects of Chiropractic Care on Strength, Balance, and Endurance in Active-Duty U.S. Military Personnel with Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objectives: To investigate whether chiropractic care influences strength, balance, and/or endurance in active-duty United States military personnel with low back pain (LBP). Design: This study employed a prospective randomized controlled trial using a pragmatic treatment approach. Participants were randomly allocated to 4 weeks of chiropractic care or to a wait-list control. Interventions: Chiropractic care consisted of spinal manipulation, education, advice, and reassurance. Settings/Location: Naval Air Technical Training Center branch clinic at the Naval Hospital Pensacola Florida. Subjects: One hundred ten active-duty military personnel 18-40 years of age with self-reported LBP. Outcome measures: Isometric pulling strength from a semisquat position was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were single-leg balance with eyes open and eyes closed, and trunk muscle endurance using the Biering-Sorensen test. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain severity and disability were also measured. Outcomes were measured at baseline and 4 weeks. Linear mixed-effects regression models over baseline and 4 weeks were used for analysis. Results: Participants had mean age of 30 years (18-40), 17% were female, 33% were non-white, and 86% reported chronic LBP. Mean maximum pulling strength in the chiropractic group increased by 5.08 kgs and decreased by 7.43 kgs in the wait-list group, with a statistically significant difference in mean change between groups (p = 0.003). Statistically significant differences in mean change between groups were also observed in trunk muscle endurance (13.9 sec, p = 0.002) and balance with eyes closed (0.47 sec, p = 0.01), but not in balance with eyes open (1.19 sec, p = 0.43). Differences in mean change between groups were statistically significant in favor of chiropractic for LBP-related disability, pain intensity and interference, and fear-avoidance behavior. Conclusions: Active-duty military personnel receiving chiropractic care exhibited improved strength and endurance, as well as reduced LBP intensity and disability, compared with a wait-list control.

Possible differential benefits of edetate disodium in post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes treated with different hypoglycemic strategies in the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT).

BACKGROUND: The NIH-funded Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) randomized 1708 stable patients age ≥50 who were ≥6 months post myocardial infarction to 40 infusions of an edetate disodium-based regimen or placebo. In 633 patients with diabetes, edetate disodium significantly reduced the primary composite endpoint of mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.79, p < 0.001). The principal secondary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was also reduced (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.91, p = 0.017). It is unknown if the treatment effect differs by diabetes therapy. METHODS: We grouped the subset of 633 patients with diabetes according to glucose-lowering therapy at time of randomization. The log-rank test was used to compare active therapy versus placebo. All treatment comparisons were performed using 2-sided significance tests at the significance level of 0.05 and were as randomized. Relative risks were expressed as HR with associated 95% CI, calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: There were 162 (25.7%) patients treated with insulin; 301 (47.5%) with oral hypoglycemics only; and 170 (26.8%) receiving no pharmacologic treatment for diabetes. Patients on insulin reached the primary endpoint more frequently than patients on no pharmacologic treatment [61 (38%) vs 49 (29%) (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07-2.27, p = 0.022)] or oral hypoglycemics [61 (38%) vs 87 (29%) (HR 1.46, 1.05-2.03, p = 0.024)]. The primary endpoint occurred less frequently with edetate disodium based therapy versus placebo in patients on insulin [19 (26%) vs 42 (48%) (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.74, log-rank p = 0.002)], marginally in patients on oral hypoglycemics [38 (25%) vs 49 (34%) (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43-1.01, log-rank p = 0.041)], and no significant difference in patients not treated with a pharmacologic therapy [23 (25%) vs 26 (34%) (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39-1.20, log-rank p = 0.225)]. The interaction between randomized intravenous treatment and type of diabetes therapy was not statistically significant (p = 0.203). CONCLUSIONS: Edetate disodium treatment in stable, post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes suggests that patients on insulin therapy at baseline may accrue the greatest benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00044213?term=TACT&rank=7 identifier Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), NCT00044213.