Brent D Leininger1, Roni Evans2, Gert Bronfort3. 1. Research Fellow, Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Electronic address: lein0122@umn.edu. 2. Associate Professor, Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 3. Professor, Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess satisfaction with specific aspects of care for acute neck pain and explore the relationship between satisfaction with care, neck pain, and global satisfaction. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of patient satisfaction from a randomized trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) delivered by doctors of chiropractic, home exercise and advice (HEA) delivered by exercise therapists, and medication (MED) prescribed by a medical doctors for acute/subacute neck pain. Differences in satisfaction with specific aspects of care were analyzed using a linear mixed model. The relationship between specific aspects of care and (1) change in neck pain (primary outcome of the randomized trial) and (2) global satisfaction were assessed using Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Individuals receiving SMT or HEA were more satisfied with the information and general care received than MED group participants. Spinal manipulation therapy and HEA groups reported similar satisfaction with information provided during treatment; however, the SMT group was more satisfied with general care. Satisfaction with general care (r = -0.75 to -0.77; R(2) = 0.55-0.56) had a stronger relationship with global satisfaction compared with satisfaction with information provided (r = -0.65 to 0.67; R(2) = 0.39-0.46). The relationship between satisfaction with care and neck pain was weak (r = 0.17-0.38; R(2) = 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with acute/subacute neck pain were more satisfied with specific aspects of care received during spinal manipulation therapy or home exercise interventions compared to receiving medication. The relationship between neck pain and satisfaction with care was weak.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess satisfaction with specific aspects of care for acute neck pain and explore the relationship between satisfaction with care, neck pain, and global satisfaction. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of patient satisfaction from a randomized trial of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) delivered by doctors of chiropractic, home exercise and advice (HEA) delivered by exercise therapists, and medication (MED) prescribed by a medical doctors for acute/subacute neck pain. Differences in satisfaction with specific aspects of care were analyzed using a linear mixed model. The relationship between specific aspects of care and (1) change in neck pain (primary outcome of the randomized trial) and (2) global satisfaction were assessed using Pearson's correlation and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Individuals receiving SMT or HEA were more satisfied with the information and general care received than MED group participants. Spinal manipulation therapy and HEA groups reported similar satisfaction with information provided during treatment; however, the SMT group was more satisfied with general care. Satisfaction with general care (r = -0.75 to -0.77; R(2) = 0.55-0.56) had a stronger relationship with global satisfaction compared with satisfaction with information provided (r = -0.65 to 0.67; R(2) = 0.39-0.46). The relationship between satisfaction with care and neck pain was weak (r = 0.17-0.38; R(2) = 0.08-0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with acute/subacute neck pain were more satisfied with specific aspects of care received during spinal manipulation therapy or home exercise interventions compared to receiving medication. The relationship between neck pain and satisfaction with care was weak.
Authors: Gert Bronfort; Roni Evans; Alfred V Anderson; Kenneth H Svendsen; Yiscah Bracha; Richard H Grimm Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jan J M Pool; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Dirk L Knol; Johan W S Vlaeyen; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jan Lucas Hoving; Bart W Koes; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Willem J J Assendelft; Henk van Mameren; Walter L J M Devillé; Jan J M Pool; Rob J P M Scholten; Lex M Bouter Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jaime Guzman; Eric L Hurwitz; Linda J Carroll; Scott Haldeman; Pierre Côté; Eugene J Carragee; Paul M Peloso; Gabrielle van der Velde; Lena W Holm; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Margareta Nordin; J David Cassidy Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James W DeVocht; Dean L Smith; Cynthia R Long; Lance Corber; Bridget Kane; Thomas M Jones; Christine M Goertz Journal: Trials Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Christine M Goertz; Cynthia R Long; Robert D Vining; Katherine A Pohlman; Bridget Kane; Lance Corber; Joan Walter; Ian Coulter Journal: Trials Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Benjamin Hidalgo; Toby Hall; Jean Bossert; Axel Dugeny; Barbara Cagnie; Laurent Pitance Journal: J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 1.398
Authors: Amédé Gogovor; Regina Visca; Mark A Ware; Marie-France Valois; Gillian Bartlett; Matthew Hunt; Sara Ahmed Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.133