The Italian Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) study: A cross sectional survey.

The prevalence of osteopathic practitioners, their professional profile and features of their clinical practice, particularly where statutory regulation does not yet exist, are still significantly underreported. The Osteopathic Practitioners Estimates and RAtes (OPERA) project was developed as an European-based census dedicated to profiling the osteopathic profession across Europe. The present study aimed to describe the osteopathic practitioners and the profession in Italy. A voluntary, online based, closed-ended survey was distributed across Italy in the period between February and June 2017. An e-based campaign was set up to reach the Italian osteopathic professionals. Participants were asked to complete the forms by filling in the information regarding the demographics, working status and professional activities, education, consultation fees, patient complaints, treatment and management. The survey was completed by 4816 individuals. 196 people started the survey but did not finish, which corresponds to a 4% attrition rate. The majority of respondents were males (66.7%). The modal age group was 30-39 (40.0%). 73.8% of respondents had a previous academic degree, mainly in the fields of sports science (36.4%) and physiotherapy (25.3%). 25.6% declared not to have a previous academic degree. The majority of respondents declared to work alone (58.4%), while the remaining declared to work in association with other professionals. The osteopaths /citizens ratio was 8.0 osteopaths/100,000 citizens. The profile of osteopaths in Italy seems to be characterised by a self-employed young adult male working mostly as a sole practitioner, who has been trained as osteopath through a part-time curriculum and had a previous degree mostly in the fields of sports science or physiotherapy. These results provide important insights into the osteopathic profession in Italy. The varied professional educational backgrounds need to be considered with regard to the implementation of a professional licensing process and future pre-registration education in the country. The number of respondents is an estimate of the actual number of Italian osteopaths. Only the completion of the regulatory process and the creation of the mandatory official register will allow to know the number of Italy based osteopaths.

Osteopathic care for low back pain and neck pain: A cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to examine the health and economic consequences of osteopathic care for low back pain and neck pain in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone. DESIGN: A decision tree model considering a one-year time horizon was applied. The analysis occurred from a health insurance perspective only considering direct medical costs. The health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). MAIN OUTCOMES: The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty around key input parameters was addressed applying one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (5000 simulations). RESULTS: For low back pain, osteopathy resulted in cost savings (€385.1 vs €501.8/patient) at improved QALYs (0.666 vs. 0.614) compared to usual care. For neck pain, osteopathy resulted in additional costs (€577.3 vs. €521.0) and improved QALYs (0.639 vs. 0.609) resulting in an ICER of €1,870/QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis identified the hospitalization cost (back) and osteopathy cost (neck) as major cost drivers. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in an average net saving of €163 (95%CI-€260, -€49.1) and a QALY gain of 0.06 (95%CI -0.06, 0.17) for low back pain and an average additional cost of €55.1 (95%CI €20.9, €129) and improved QALY gain of 0.03 (95%CI-0.06, 0.12) for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathy was found to be a 'dominant' (low back pain) and cost-effective strategy (neck pain) compared to usual care. Further health economic evaluation studies considering a broader range of cost items and longer time horizon are required.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment: A systematic review and critical appraisal of comparative effectiveness and health economics research.

In recent years, evidence has emerged regarding the effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT). Despite growing evidence in this field, there is need for appropriate research designs that effectively reflect the person-centred system of care promoted in osteopathy and provide data which can inform policy decisions within the healthcare system. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence from comparative effectiveness and economic evaluation research involving OMT. A database search was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed, PEDro, AMED, SCOPUS and OSTMED.DR, from their inception to May 2015. Two separate searches were undertaken to identify original research articles encompassing the economic evaluation and comparative effectiveness of OMT. Identified comparative effectives studies were evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and appraised using the Good Reporting of Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) principles. Identified economic studies were assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. Sixteen studies reporting the findings of comparative effectiveness (n = 9) and economic evaluation (n = 7) research were included. The comparative effectiveness studies reported outcomes for varied health conditions and the majority (n = 6) demonstrated a high risk of bias. The economic evaluations included a range of analyses and considerable differences in the quality of reporting were evident. Despite some positive findings, published comparative effectiveness and health economic studies in OMT are of insufficient quality and quantity to inform policy and practice. High quality, well-designed, research that aligns with international best practice is greatly needed to build a pragmatic evidence base for OMT.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of osteopathic manipulative treatment on preterms.

BACKGROUND: Despite some preliminary evidence, it is still largely unknown whether osteopathic manipulative treatment improves preterm clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present multi-center randomized single blind parallel group clinical trial enrolled newborns who met the criteria for gestational age between 29 and 37 weeks, without any congenital complication from 3 different public neonatal intensive care units. Preterm infants were randomly assigned to usual prenatal care (control group) or osteopathic manipulative treatment (study group). The primary outcome was the mean difference in length of hospital stay between groups. RESULTS: A total of 695 newborns were randomly assigned to either the study group (n= 352) or the control group (n=343). A statistical significant difference was observed between the two groups for the primary outcome (13.8 and 17.5 days for the study and control group respectively, p<0.001, effect size: 0.31). Multivariate analysis showed a reduction of the length of stay of 3.9 days (95% CI -5.5 to -2.3, p<0.001). Furthermore, there were significant reductions with treatment as compared to usual care in cost (difference between study and control group: 1,586.01€; 95% CI 1,087.18 to 6,277.28; p<0.001) but not in daily weight gain. There were no complications associated to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Osteopathic treatment reduced significantly the number of days of hospitalization and is cost-effective on a large cohort of preterm infants.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment and pain in preterms: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence proved the necessity to improve health care and pain management in newborns. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been largely used to treat painful syndromes as well as term and preterm newborns. Recent studies have demonstrated positive results of osteopathy in reducing length of stay and costs. However, no trials were carried out on pain in newborns. The aim of the present clinical trial is to explore the effectiveness of osteopathic treatment in reducing pain in a sample of preterms. METHODS/DESIGN: A three-armed single blinded placebo-control randomised controlled trial protocol has been designed to primarily evaluate the extent to which OMT is effective in reducing pain in preterms. One hundred and twenty newborns will be enrolled from one tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in central Italy and randomised in three groups: study, sham and control. The study group will be further prospectively randomised in two subgroups: experienced osteopaths and students. All preterms will receive standard medical care. Osteopathic treatment will be applied to the study group only whilst 'soft touch' will be administer to the sham group only. Newborns will undergo manual sessions once a week for the entire period of hospitalisation. Blinding will be assured for neonatal staff and outcome assessor. Primary outcome will be the mean difference in baseline score changes of PIPP questionnaire between discharge and entry among the three groups. Secondary outcomes will be: mean difference in length of stay and costs between groups. Statistical analyses will use per-protocol analysis method. Missing data will be handled using last observation carried forward imputation technique. DISCUSSION: The present single blinded randomised controlled trial has been designed to explore potential advantages of OMT in the management of newborns' pain. Currently, based on a patient-centred need-based approach, this research will be looking at the benefit of osteopathic care rather than the efficacy of a specific technique or a pre-determined protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02146677 ) on 20 May 2014.

Effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on length of stay in a population of preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in preterm infants has been documented and results from previous studies suggest the association between OMT and length of stay (LOS) reduction, as well as significant improvements in several clinical outcomes. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of OMT on LOS in premature infants. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on preterm newborns admitted to a single NICU between 2008-2009. N=110 subjects free of medical complications and with gestational age >28 and < 38 weeks were enrolled and randomized in two groups: study group (N=55) and control group (N=55). All subjects received routine pediatric care and OMT was performed to the study group for the entire period of hospitalization. Endpoints of the study included differences in LOS and daily weight gain. RESULTS: Results showed a significant association between OMT and LOS reduction (mean difference between treated and control group: -5.906; 95% C.I. -7.944, -3.869; p<0.001). OMT was not associated to any change in daily weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that OMT may have an important role in the management of preterm infants hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01544257.

Billing and coding for osteopathic manipulative treatment.

Some osteopathic physicians are not properly reimbursed by insurance companies after providing osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to their patients. Common problems associated with lack of reimbursements include insurers bundling OMT with the standard evaluation and management service and confusing OMT with chiropractic manipulative treatment or physical therapy services. The authors suggest methods of appeal for denied reimbursement claims that will also prevent future payment denials.

Impact of osteopathic manipulative treatment on cost of care for patients with migraine headache: a retrospective review of patient records.

CONTEXT: Migraine headache is highly prevalent in the United States, resulting in large healthcare expenditures. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) at an osteopathic family practice residency clinic affected the cost of treating patients with migraine headache, compared with non-OMT care at the osteopathic clinic and care at an allopathic family practice residency clinic. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records from patients treated for migraine at two residency clinics within the Florida Hospital organization from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2007. One of the clinics was osteopathic and offered OMT services, and the other clinic was allopathic and did not offer OMT. All costs compiled during the office visits and costs of prescribed medications were tabulated for each patient. Patients' pain-severity ratings, as reported in office visits in 2006 and 2007, were also tabulated. RESULTS: Electronic medical records from 631 patients, representing 1427 migraine-related office visits, were analyzed. Average cost per patient visit was approximately 50% less at the osteopathic clinic than at the allopathic clinic ($195.63 vs $363.84, respectively; P<.001). This observed difference was entirely attributable to the difference in the average number of medications prescribed per visit at the two clinics, with 0.696 prescriptions at the osteopathic clinic and 1.285 prescriptions at the allopathic clinic (P<.001). This difference in prescription number resulted in a lower average medication cost per visit at the osteopathic clinic than at the allopathic clinic ($106.94 vs $284.93, respectively; P<.001). Patients at the osteopathic clinic were 5 years younger on average than at the allopathic clinic (P<.001). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two practices in patients' ratings of pain severity. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of OMT in a treatment regimen for patients with migraine headache may lower the cost of the treatment regimen. However, further study is needed to confirm these results.

Estimating cost of care for patients with acute low back pain: a retrospective review of patient records.

CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) has a major economic impact in the United States, with total costs related to this condition exceeding $100 billion per year. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of standard care compared to standard care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for acute LBP of less than 6 months' duration. METHODS: A retrospective review of electronic medical records from patients who visited Florida Hospital East Orlando in Orlando. All patients had LBP of less than 6 months' duration and had received care between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2005. The control group comprised patients who received standard care; the study group consisted of patients who received OMT in addition to standard care. Healthcare utilization (eg, radiologic scans, prescriptions) was determined by "episodes of care," and costs were averaged per patient. RESULTS: A total of 1556 patients and 2030 episodes of care met inclusion criteria. Compared with subjects in the control group, individuals in the OMT group had an average of 0.5 more office visits per EOC, resulting in 38% more office visits. However, OMT patients had 18.5% fewer prescriptions written, 74.2% fewer radiographs, 76.9% fewer referrals, and 90% fewer magnetic resonance imaging scans. In the OMT group, total average costs were $38.26 lower (P=.02), and average prescription costs were $19.53 lower (P<.001). Patients in the OMT group also had $63.81 less average radiologic costs (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Osteopathic manipulative treatment may reduce costs for the management of acute LBP. Further research in a prospective study is needed.

Cost-effective osteopathic manipulative medicine: a literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses for osteopathic manipulative treatment.

Despite the value that osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) may offer to healthcare consumers in a managed care, evidence-based healthcare system, very little research has been published on the cost-effectiveness of osteopathic manipulative treatment compared with other treatment modalities. The authors searched MEDLINE and OSTMED for English-language articles published between January 1966 and June 2002 using the key terms cost-effectiveness, osteopathic medicine, workers' compensation, hospital length of stay, healthcare providers, and manipulative medicine. The authors then extended their search by reviewing the reference lists provided in the articles initially identified as relevant by these databases. The purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions of each study were evaluated for how the cost-effectiveness of OMM was analyzed. The authors conclude that the osteopathic medical profession needs to conduct and publish research that is consistent with current practices in the conventional medical literature.

Use of osteopathic or chiropractic services among people with back pain: a UK population survey.

Questionnaires covering health and the use of complementary, alternative and conventional health services were mailed to a random sample of 14 868 adults aged 18-64 years living in four counties of England in 1997. The present study examined the use of osteopathy/chiropractic among the 15% (n = 1377) of respondents reporting back pain. Osteopaths/chiropractors were seen by 13.4% (n = 184) of respondents with back pain during the past 3 months compared with 9.8% (n = 135) who consulted physiotherapists. The presence of back pain and non-manual social class were the strongest predictors of consultation with both types of practitioner. Women, older respondents, non-smokers and those who exercised for 30 minutes at least once a week were more likely to use osteopathy/chiropractic. The only other significant predictor of physiotherapy use was desire for more physical exercise. While those reporting back pain had Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores suggesting very significant levels ofdisability, respondents with back pain who consulted osteopaths/chiropractors reported better health in all dimensions of the SF-36 than those using physiotherapy services. Although they reported worse pain scores than people not consulting any practitioners, their mental health, physical functioning, energy and health perception were better. It is impossible to disentangle cause and effect in this cross-sectional study, but the data suggest that people who can afford to pay are more likely to choose osteopath/chiropractor treatments than physiotherapy. The possibility that osteopath/chiropractor treatment has a generalised positive effect on health, allowing people with back pain to function better than those not receiving such treatment, warrants further investigation.

Randomized osteopathic manipulation study (ROMANS): pragmatic trial for spinal pain in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Spinal pain is common and frequently disabling. Management guidelines have encouraged referral from primary care for spinal manipulation. However, the evidence base for these recommendations is weak. More pragmatic trials and economic evaluations have been recommended. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and health care costs of a practice-based osteopathy clinic for subacute spinal pain. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was carried out in a primary care osteopathy clinic accepting referrals from 14 neighbouring practices in North West Wales. A total of 201 patients with neck or back pain of 2-12 weeks duration were allocated at random between usual GP care and an additional three sessions of osteopathic spinal manipulation. The primary outcome measure was the Extended Aberdeen Spine Pain Scale (EASPS). Secondary measures included SF-12, EuroQol and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Health care costs were estimated from the records of referring GPs. RESULTS: Outcomes improved more in the osteopathy group than the usual care group. At 2 months, this improvement was significantly greater in EASPS [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-9.8] and SF-12 mental score (95% CI 2.7-10.7). At 6 months, this difference was no longer significant for EASPS (95% CI -1.5 to 10.4), but remained significant for SF-12 mental score (95% CI 1.0-9.9). Mean health care costs attributed to spinal pain were significantly greater by 65 UK pounds in the osteopathy group (95% CI 32-155 UK pounds). Though osteopathy also cost 22 UK pounds more in mean total health care cost, this was not significant (95% CI - 159 to 142 UK pounds). CONCLUSION: A primary care osteopathy clinic improved short-term physical and longer term psychological outcomes, at little extra cost. Rigorous multicentre studies are now needed to assess the generalizability of this approach.