Dan Marthick-Hone1, Aunty Kerrie Doyle2, Gerard A Kennedy3, Dein Vindigni4, Barbara I Polus5. 1. Discipline of Chiropractic, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia. dan.hone@rmit.edu.au. 2. Indigenous Health School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown, Australia. 3. Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Federation University, Ballarat, Australia. 4. Discipline of Chiropractic, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia. 5. School of Engineering, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic is a mostly privatised health profession within Australia, with people experiencing disadvantage typically having limited access due to financial barriers. However, some universities within Australia offer community outreach clinics where students provide chiropractic care to people living with disadvantage. This demographic experiences higher rates of chronic conditions including musculoskeletal complaints and requires subsidisation to access privatised care. This need also offers opportunity for the chiropractic profession to work within community healthcare teams. A mixed-methods observational study was used to investigate how the unique setting of a student chiropractic community clinic may influence the experience and outcomes of those who attend. METHODS: Three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) investigated client outcomes: Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP); European Five Domain Five Level Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L); and the Patient Enablement Instrument. The PROMs data were analysed descriptively and inferentially. Interviews were conducted with clients who had received chiropractic care, chiropractic students, clinical supervisors and staff of the centre. Interview data were coded using thematic analysis, and themes were formed using Bronfenbrenner's socio-ecological systems framework and non-participant observations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants completed baseline PROMs and 17 completed follow-ups after four treatments. Seventy-two percent of participants nominated their primary complaint as chronic. Significant change was noted in general health and wellbeing for the MYMOP, pain and disability for the EQ-5D-5L and index scores for the EQ-5D-5L suggested improved health and wellbeing. Most clients experienced higher levels of enablement post treatment. Twelve participants were interviewed (four were clients), with five themes emerging from the interview data. Clients reported their lived experiences impacted their health problems and attending the clinic offered benefits beyond improvement of pain and disability. CONCLUSIONS: Interview data suggested that these benefits were due to a combination of therapy, the setting and the relationships formed within that setting. Complementing this, PROM data suggested clients experienced better levels of health and wellbeing and decreased levels of pain and disability. Findings indicated that people who experienced disadvantage may receive broader benefits from attending community centres offering chiropractic care. Services such as chiropractic may be complementary in meeting the healthcare needs of those experiencing disadvantage.
BACKGROUND: Chiropractic is a mostly privatised health profession within Australia, with people experiencing disadvantage typically having limited access due to financial barriers. However, some universities within Australia offer community outreach clinics where students provide chiropractic care to people living with disadvantage. This demographic experiences higher rates of chronic conditions including musculoskeletal complaints and requires subsidisation to access privatised care. This need also offers opportunity for the chiropractic profession to work within community healthcare teams. A mixed-methods observational study was used to investigate how the unique setting of a student chiropractic community clinic may influence the experience and outcomes of those who attend. METHODS: Three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) investigated client outcomes: Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP); European Five Domain Five Level Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L); and the Patient Enablement Instrument. The PROMs data were analysed descriptively and inferentially. Interviews were conducted with clients who had received chiropractic care, chiropractic students, clinical supervisors and staff of the centre. Interview data were coded using thematic analysis, and themes were formed using Bronfenbrenner's socio-ecological systems framework and non-participant observations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven participants completed baseline PROMs and 17 completed follow-ups after four treatments. Seventy-two percent of participants nominated their primary complaint as chronic. Significant change was noted in general health and wellbeing for the MYMOP, pain and disability for the EQ-5D-5L and index scores for the EQ-5D-5L suggested improved health and wellbeing. Most clients experienced higher levels of enablement post treatment. Twelve participants were interviewed (four were clients), with five themes emerging from the interview data. Clients reported their lived experiences impacted their health problems and attending the clinic offered benefits beyond improvement of pain and disability. CONCLUSIONS: Interview data suggested that these benefits were due to a combination of therapy, the setting and the relationships formed within that setting. Complementing this, PROM data suggested clients experienced better levels of health and wellbeing and decreased levels of pain and disability. Findings indicated that people who experienced disadvantage may receive broader benefits from attending community centres offering chiropractic care. Services such as chiropractic may be complementary in meeting the healthcare needs of those experiencing disadvantage.
Authors: Jan Hartvigsen; Mark J Hancock; Alice Kongsted; Quinette Louw; Manuela L Ferreira; Stéphane Genevay; Damian Hoy; Jaro Karppinen; Glenn Pransky; Joachim Sieper; Rob J Smeets; Martin Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ramon Jose Seastres; Jennie Hutton; Rachel Zordan; Gaye Moore; Jessica Mackelprang; Katerina V Kiburg; Vijaya Sundararajan Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Tom Brett; Diane E Arnold-Reed; Lakkhina Troeung; Max K Bulsara; Annalisse Williams; Robert G Moorhead Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Kathryn Skivington; Alastair H Leyland; Kate Hunt; Stewart W Mercer Journal: BMC Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Silvia Stringhini; Cristian Carmeli; Markus Jokela; Mauricio Avendaño; Peter Muennig; Florence Guida; Fulvio Ricceri; Angelo d'Errico; Henrique Barros; Murielle Bochud; Marc Chadeau-Hyam; Françoise Clavel-Chapelon; Giuseppe Costa; Cyrille Delpierre; Silvia Fraga; Marcel Goldberg; Graham G Giles; Vittorio Krogh; Michelle Kelly-Irving; Richard Layte; Aurélie M Lasserre; Michael G Marmot; Martin Preisig; Martin J Shipley; Peter Vollenweider; Marie Zins; Ichiro Kawachi; Andrew Steptoe; Johan P Mackenbach; Paolo Vineis; Mika Kivimäki Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 202.731