The Role of Chiropractic Care in Providing Health Promotion and Clinical Preventive Services for Adult Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice. Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services. Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of experienced practitioners and faculty, primarily but not exclusively chiropractors, rated the recommendations by using the formal consensus methodology established by the RAND Corporation/University of California. Results: The Delphi consensus process was conducted during January-February 2021. The 65-member Delphi panel reached a high level of consensus on appropriate application of clinical preventive services for screening and health promotion counseling within the chiropractic scope of practice. Interprofessional collaboration for the successful delivery of clinical preventive services was emphasized. Recommendations were made on primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions: Application of this guideline in chiropractic practice may facilitate consistent and appropriate use of screening and preventive services and foster interprofessional collaboration to promote clinical preventive services and contribute to improved public health.

Chiropractic care and public health: answering difficult questions about safety, care through the lifespan, and community action.

The purpose of this collaborative summary is to document current chiropractic involvement in the public health movement, reflect on social ecological levels of influence as a profession, and summarize the relationship of chiropractic to the current public health topics of: safety, health issues through the lifespan, and effective participation in community health issues. The questions that are addressed include: Is spinal manipulative therapy for neck and low-back pain a public health problem? What is the role of chiropractic care in prevention or reduction of musculoskeletal injuries in children? What ways can doctors of chiropractic stay updated on evidence-based information about vaccines and immunization throughout the lifespan? Can smoking cessation be a prevention strategy for back pain? Does chiropractic have relevance within the VA Health Care System for chronic pain and comorbid disorders? How can chiropractic use cognitive behavioral therapy to address chronic low back pain as a public health problem? What opportunities exist for doctors of chiropractic to more effectively serve the aging population? What is the role of ethics and the contribution of the chiropractic profession to public health? What public health roles can chiropractic interns perform for underserved communities in a collaborative environment? Can the chiropractic profession contribute to community health? What opportunities do doctors of chiropractic have to be involved in health care reform in the areas of prevention and public health? What role do citizen-doctors of chiropractic have in organizing community action on health-related matters? How can our future chiropractic graduates become socially responsible agents of change?

Consensus process to develop a best-practice document on the role of chiropractic care in health promotion, disease prevention, and wellness.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this project were to develop consensus definitions for a set of best practices that doctors of chiropractic may use for promoting health and wellness and preventing disease and to describe the appropriate components and procedures for these practices. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee of 10 health care professionals developed seed statements based on their clinical experience and relevant literature. A Delphi consensus process was conducted from January to July 2011, following the RAND methodology. Consensus was reached when at least 80% of the panelists were in agreement. There were 44 Delphi panelists (36 doctors of chiropractic, 6 doctors of philosophy, 1 doctor of naturopathy, 1 registered nurse). RESULTS: The statements developed defined the terms and practices for chiropractic care to promote health and wellness and prevent disease. CONCLUSION: This document describes the procedures and features of wellness care that represent a reasonable approach to wellness care and disease prevention in chiropractic clinical practice. This living document provides a general framework for an evidence-based approach to chiropractic wellness care.

Improving preventive health services training in chiropractic colleges part II: enhancing outcomes through improved training and accountability processes.

OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, chiropractic colleges have introduced clinical prevention services (CPS) training. This has included an updated public health curriculum and procedures for student interns to determine the need for preventive services and to provide these services directly or through referral to other health professionals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a program to train chiropractic interns to deliver CPS to patients. METHODS: Program evaluation used retrospective chart review, comparing the proportion of patients receiving CPS recommendations before and after implementation of the program. The main outcome measures were the percentage of appropriate CPS recommendations based upon chart reviews. RESULTS: Chart reviews in 2006 indicated appropriate CPS recommendations in 47.4% of cases (295/623). Chart reviews in 2007, after an additional year of sustained implementation of procedures to ensure intern and faculty accountability, showed appropriate counseling recommendations in 87% of files (137/156). CONCLUSIONS: Requiring interns to attend didactic presentations on CPS had no measurable effect on their performance. Major improvements occurred after a series of clinically relevant training interventions; new forms and audit procedures were implemented to increase intern and clinical faculty accountability.

Do chiropractors identify with complementary and alternative medicine? Results of a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic in the United States exhibits characteristics of both mainstream health care and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The purpose of this project was to investigate the opinions of a sample of chiropractic faculty and practitioners on the appropriate classification of their profession, in terms of CAM versus mainstream. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study conducted by means of an electronically administered survey to a sample of chiropractic college faculty and practicing chiropractors. SAMPLE POPULATION: The faculty sample consisted of all faculty members holding Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) degrees at 4 chiropractic colleges, 2 in the Midwest and 2 in southern California. The practitioner sample consisted of all 108 participants, located in 32 states in the United States, in a chiropractic practice-based research network. SURVEY INSTRUMENT: The survey instrument was based on one used with permission from its authors, who had developed and used it to gather information about respondents' concepts and definitions of health and disease, in order to compare the broad categories of practitioners-mainstream medicine, integrated medicine (IM), and CAM. RESULTS: Of 191 D.C. faculty invited to participate, 71 (37%) completed the survey. Of the 108 practicing D.C.s invited to participate, 61 (57%) completed the survey. Of the total sample of 132, 69% did not agree that chiropractic should be categorized as CAM. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of 132 thought that chiropractors should be classified as IM; 20% of practitioners and 6% of faculty considered chiropractic mainstream medicine. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (69%) of the chiropractors in this sample rejected being characterized as CAM practitioners, showing some preference for the term IM (27%).

The use and role of sport chiropractors in the national football league: a short report.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze chiropractic utilization on National Football League (NFL) medical teams and the role played by chiropractors. DESIGN: Postal survey of head athletic trainers of the 36 teams. Survey questions were developed from responses to a questionnaire submitted to a pilot group of 30 sport chiropractors and a panel of 20 postdoctoral faculty of the sport chiropractic program of the American Chiropractic Board of Sport Physicians, as well as a representative from the University of South Alabama. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 36 questionnaires were returned for a return rate of 66%. Of the trainers who did respond, 45% have personally been treated by a chiropractor, and 55% have not. Seventy-seven percent of the trainers have referred to a chiropractor for evaluation or treatment, and 23% have not. Thirty-one percent of NFL teams use a chiropractor in an official capacity on their staffs, and 69% do not. When asked to identify conditions appropriate for referral to a chiropractor, the respondents identified low back pain (61%), "stingers" and "burners" usually associated with neck injury (31%), headaches (8%), asthma or other visceral disorders (0%). All respondents (100%) agree that some players use chiropractic care without referral from team medical staff. CONCLUSION: There is significant chiropractic participation in US professional football. Certified athletic trainers see a role for the sport chiropractor in the NFL, primarily as a spinal specialist treating low back and other musculoskeletal injuries. A substantial majority of NFL trainers have developed cooperative relationships with chiropractors, with 77% having referred a player to a chiropractor. Thirty-one percent of NFL teams have a chiropractor officially on staff, and an additional 12% of teams refer players to chiropractors but do not directly retain these chiropractors.