Charles Elder1, Lynn DeBar2, Cheryl Ritenbaugh3, John Dickerson4, William M Vollmer4, Richard A Deyo5, Eric S Johnson4, Mitchell Haas6. 1. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA. Charles.Elder@kpchr.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality and Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care. KEY RESULTS: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.
Entities:
Keywords:
alternative medicine; back pain; chiropractic; chronic musculoskeletal pain; comparative effectiveness; complementary and integrative medicine; managed care; neck pain; primary care; propensity scoring; spinal manipulation
Authors: Frances P Thorndike; Lee M Ritterband; Drew K Saylor; Joshua C Magee; Linda A Gonder-Frederick; Charles M Morin Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Frances L Lynch; Mark Hornbrook; Gregory N Clarke; Nancy Perrin; Michael R Polen; Elizabeth O'Connor; John Dickerson Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-11
Authors: San Keller; Carla M Bann; Sheri L Dodd; Jeff Schein; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: David H Smith; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; Ashli A Owen-Smith; Cynthia Rand; Jeffrey Tom; Suma Vupputuri; Reesa Laws; Amy Waterbury; Dana D Hankerson-Dyson; Cyndee Yonehara; Andrew Williams; Jennifer Schneider; John F Dickerson; William M Vollmer Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Eric S Johnson; John F Dickerson; William M Vollmer; Alee M Rowley; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Richard A Deyo; Lynn DeBar Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Andrea L Nevedal; Eleanor T Lewis; Justina Wu; Josephine Jacobs; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Roger Chou; Paul G Barnett Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 5.128