Peter Tuchin1. 1. Senior Lecturer, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey the choice of treatment provider by selected Australian office workers for common conditions that are managed in chiropractic practice. METHODS: Office workers of a medium-sized legal company in Sydney, Australia, were surveyed. The participants (n = 125) were asked to complete a written questionnaire on their preferred treatment choices for common physical conditions, such as back pain, neck pain, and headache. RESULTS: A total of 81 people returned completed questionnaires. Forty-two people (52%) reported that they would attend a general medical practitioner first for back pain. In comparison, 24% of people reported that they would attend a physiotherapist first for back pain. Eleven people (13%) reported that they would attend a chiropractor first for back pain. Fifty-one percent (51%) of employees reported that their preferred treatment first choice for neck pain was a general practitioner. Chiropractic was rated as third (30%) most common choice for the treatment of neck pain (equal with physiotherapy). The preferred first choice (63% of employees) for headache treatment was a general practitioner. The second most common choice for treatment of headache was a naturopath (50%). Eighty-one percent of employees ranked a general practitioner as their preferred treatment first choice for migraine, and 39% of employees also ranked the general practitioner as the second most common treatment choice for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Australian workers, chiropractic was rated within the top 3 choices for several common neuromusculoskeletal conditions for which they may have chosen a chiropractor. Because of the small sample size and limited parameters of this study, no strong conclusions can be made until further data are collected.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to survey the choice of treatment provider by selected Australian office workers for common conditions that are managed in chiropractic practice. METHODS: Office workers of a medium-sized legal company in Sydney, Australia, were surveyed. The participants (n = 125) were asked to complete a written questionnaire on their preferred treatment choices for common physical conditions, such as back pain, neck pain, and headache. RESULTS: A total of 81 people returned completed questionnaires. Forty-two people (52%) reported that they would attend a general medical practitioner first for back pain. In comparison, 24% of people reported that they would attend a physiotherapist first for back pain. Eleven people (13%) reported that they would attend a chiropractor first for back pain. Fifty-one percent (51%) of employees reported that their preferred treatment first choice for neck pain was a general practitioner. Chiropractic was rated as third (30%) most common choice for the treatment of neck pain (equal with physiotherapy). The preferred first choice (63% of employees) for headache treatment was a general practitioner. The second most common choice for treatment of headache was a naturopath (50%). Eighty-one percent of employees ranked a general practitioner as their preferred treatment first choice for migraine, and 39% of employees also ranked the general practitioner as the second most common treatment choice for migraine. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Australian workers, chiropractic was rated within the top 3 choices for several common neuromusculoskeletal conditions for which they may have chosen a chiropractor. Because of the small sample size and limited parameters of this study, no strong conclusions can be made until further data are collected.
Authors: Jonathan Hill; Martyn Lewis; Ann C Papageorgiou; Krysia Dziedzic; Peter Croft Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ian D Coulter; Eric L Hurwitz; Alan H Adams; Barbara J Genovese; Ron Hays; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: A Malmivaara; U Häkkinen; T Aro; M L Heinrichs; L Koskenniemi; E Kuosma; S Lappi; R Paloheimo; C Servo; V Vaaranen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-02-09 Impact factor: 91.245