Première ligne de soins pour les travailleurs atteints de rachialgie occupationnelle : délai de consultation et premier fournisseur de services de santé

Introduction : En 2004, la Commission ontarienne de la sécurité professionnelle et de l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (CSPAAT) a autorisé les travailleurs blessés à consulter directement chiropraticiens, médecins, physiothérapeutes et infirmières autorisées. Dans un souci de développer la meilleure première ligne de soins possible, il importe d’investiguer l’impact de ces nouveaux premiers fournisseurs de soins. La présente thèse a pour objectifs d’investiguer les facteurs reliés au délai de consultation et au type de premier fournisseur de soins ainsi que l’association entre ces derniers et la durée d’indemnisation financière des travailleurs rachialgiques ontariens. Méthodes : Nous avons analysé les données d’une cohorte rétrospective de travailleurs rachialgiques (n=5520) indemnisés par la CSPAAT en 2005. Des déterminants du type de premier fournisseur de services de santé et du délai de consultation avec ce dernier ont été identifiés au moyen de régressions logistiques et de modèles de Cox. Les associations entre les premiers fournisseurs de services de santé, les délais de consultation et la durée d’indemnisation salariale ont aussi été évaluées au moyen de modèles de Cox. L’analyse d’un sondage effectué auprès de chiropraticiens canadiens a permis de cibler des caractéristiques associées au nombre de travailleurs accidentés qu’ils traitent par année en utilisant une régression négative binomiale. Résultats : Les travailleurs consultant initialement un physiothérapeute étaient significativement plus âgés, ceux consultant un chiropraticien étaient moins susceptibles de vivre dans une communauté de plus de 1 500 000 habitants et d’avoir un emploi manuel alors que ceux consultant un médecin en première ligne avaient des blessures moins sévères et moins d’antécédents de blessures similaires. Par rapport aux travailleurs consultant un médecin (référence) en première ligne, ceux qui ont consulté un chiropraticien ont eu des premiers épisodes d’indemnisation salariale complète plus courts (rapport de risques instantanés [HR] = 1,20 [1,10 au 1,31], p <0,001), et ceux qui ont consulté un physiothérapeute des premiers épisodes d’indemnisation salariale complète plus longs (HR ajusté = 0,84 [de 0,71 à 0,98], p = 0,028) au cours des 149 premiers jours d’indemnisation. Le délai de consultation était plus court pour les travailleurs ayant accès à un programme de retour au travail hâtif. Des blessures plus sévères, le doute de l’employeur sur l’origine occupationnelle de la blessure et consulter un physiothérapeute en première ligne étaient associés à un plus long délai de consultation. En contrôlant pour les facteurs de confusion, le délai de consultation était significativement associé à la durée du premier épisode d’indemnisation salariale (HR = 0,98 ; p <0,001). Les chiropraticiens canadiens qui ont déclaré un volume plus élevé de travailleurs accidentés avaient des pratiques orientées vers le traitement des travailleurs blessés, collaboraient avec d’autres professionnels de la santé, et facilitaient l’accès aux soins des travailleurs. Conclusion : Le type de premier fournisseur de soins consulté pour une rachialgie occupationnelle est influencé par des facteurs reliés à la blessure et à l’emploi ainsi que par la taille de la communauté du travailleur. Contrairement aux études précédentes, les travailleurs consultant un médecin ne présentaient pas de blessure plus sévère. Le type de premier fournisseur de soins et le délai de consultation avec ce dernier sont des déterminants de la durée du premier épisode d’indemnisation.Introduction: In 2004, the Ontario workplace safety and insurance board at Work (WSIB) has revised its policy of choices and change of healthcare to allow injured workers to directly seek care from chiropractors, physicians, physiotherapists and registered nurses (extended class). In order to develop the best first line of care possible, it is important to investigate whether the new first healthcare providers have an impact on the delay of return to work. The objectives of this thesis are to investigate the factors related to the time to care and the type of first healthcare provider as well as the association between the latter and the duration of financial compensation of Ontarian workers with back pain. Methods: We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of workers with back pain (n=5520) compensated by the WSIB in 2005. Determinants of the first healthcare provider type and of the time to care with the latter were identified using logistic regression and Cox models. The associations between the first healthcare provider, the time to care and the duration of the first episode of compensation were assessed using Cox models. Analysis of a survey of Canadian chiropractors allowed to identify characteristics associated with the number of injured workers they treat annually using a negative binomial regression. Results: The workers who first consulted a physiotherapist were significantly older, those who chose a chiropractor were less likely to live in community larger than 1,500,000 inhabitants and to have a manual job and those who first consulted a medical doctor had significantly less severe injuries and fewer previous similar injuries. Compared with the workers who first saw a physician (reference), those who first saw a chiropractor experienced shorter first episodes of 100% wage compensation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20 [1.10 to 1.31], p-value <0.001), and the workers who first saw a physiotherapist experienced a longer episode of 100% compensation (adjusted HR=0.84 [0.71 to 0.98], p-value=0.028) during the first 149 days of compensation. Time to care was shorter for workers with access to an early return to work program. More severe nature of injury, employer’s doubt about the work relatedness of the injury and consulting a physiotherapist as the first healthcare provider were also associated with longer time to care. Considering potential confounders, a longer time to care was significantly associated with a delay in the end of the first episode of compensation (HR= 0.98; p <0.001). Canadian chiropractors who reported a higher volume of workers’ compensation patients had practices oriented towards the treatment of injured workers, collaborated with other healthcare providers, and facilitated workers’ access to care. Conclusion: The type of first healthcare provider sought for occupational back pain is influenced by injury- and work-related factors and by the worker’s community size. Contrary to previous studies, the workers who first sought a physician did not have higher odds of having a severe injury. The type of healthcare provider first visited for back pain and the timing of the first healthcare consultation are determinants of the duration of the first episode of compensation

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Chiropractic care and research priorities for the pediatric population: a cross-sectional survey of Quebec chiropractors

Abstract Background Chiropractors commonly treat pediatric patients within their private practices. The objectives of this study were (1) to identify the treatment techniques and health advice used by Quebec chiropractors with pediatric patients; (2) to explore the research priorities of Quebec chiropractors for the pediatric population; and (3) to identify Quebec chiropractors’ training in the field of pediatric chiropractics. Methods A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among all licensed Quebec chiropractors (Qc, Canada). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all quantitative variables. Results The results showed that among the 245 respondents (22.8% response rate), practitioners adapted their treatment techniques based on their patients’ age group, thus using softer techniques with younger pediatric patients and slowly gravitating toward techniques used with adults when patients reached the age of six. In terms of continuing education, chiropractors reported an average of 7.87 h of training on the subject per year, which mostly came from either Quebec’s College of Chiropractors (OCQ) (54.7%), written articles (46.9%) or seminars and conferences (43.7%). Both musculoskeletal (MSK) and viscerosomatic conditions were identified as high research priorities by the clinicians. Conclusions Quebec chiropractors adapt their treatment techniques to pediatric patients. In light of limited sources of continuing education in the field of pediatric chiropractics, practitioners mostly rely on the training provided by their provincial college and scientific publications. According to practitioners, future research priorities for pediatric care should focus on both MSK conditions and non-MSK conditions

Effectiveness and Economic Evaluation of Chiropractic Care for the Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of Pragmatic Studies.

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and among the most common reasons for seeking primary sector care. Chiropractors, physical therapists and general practitioners are among those providers that treat LBP patients, but there is only limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and economic evaluation of care offered by these provider groups.To estimate the clinical effectiveness and to systematically review the literature of full economic evaluation of chiropractic care compared to other commonly used care approaches among adult patients with non-specific LBP.Systematic reviews of interventions and economic evaluations.A comprehensive search strategy was conducted to identify 1) pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or 2) full economic evaluations of chiropractic care for low back pain compared to standard care delivered by other healthcare providers. Studies published between 1990 and 4th June 2015 were considered. Primary outcomes included pain, functional status and global improvement. Study selection, critical quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. Data from RCTs with low risk of bias were included in a meta-analysis to determine effect estimates. Cost estimates of full economic evaluations were converted to 2015 USD and results summarized using Slavin's qualitative best-evidence synthesis.Six RCTs and three full economic evaluations were scientifically admissible. Five RCTs with low risk of bias compared chiropractic care to exercise therapy (n = 1), physical therapy (n = 3) and medical care (n = 1). Overall, we found similar effects for chiropractic care and the other types of care and no reports of serious adverse events. Three low to high quality full economic evaluations studies (one cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization and one cost-benefit) compared chiropractic to medical care. Given the divergent conclusions (favours chiropractic, favours medical care, equivalent options), mixed-evidence was found for economic evaluations of chiropractic care compared to medical care.Moderate evidence suggests that chiropractic care for LBP appears to be equally effective as physical therapy. Limited evidence suggests the same conclusion when chiropractic care is compared to exercise therapy and medical care although no firm conclusion can be reached at this time. No serious adverse events were reported for any type of care. Our review was also unable to clarify whether chiropractic or medical care is more cost-effective. Given the limited available evidence, the decision to seek or to refer patients for chiropractic care should be based on patient preference and values. Future studies are likely to have an important impact on our estimates as these were based on only a few admissible studies

Additional file 1 of Frequency and indication of non-musculoskeletal examinations: a cross-sectional survey of Quebec chiropractors

Additional file 1: Survey sent to participants

Workers’ characteristics associated with the type of healthcare provider first seen for occupational back pain

Abstract Background Few studies have compared the factors that drive patients’ decision to choose a chiropractor, physician or physiotherapist as their first healthcare provider for occupational back pain. The purpose of this study is to identify characteristics associated with the choice of first healthcare provider seen for acute uncomplicated occupational back pain. Methods We analyzed data collected by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board from a cohort of workers with compensated back pain in 2005 in Ontario (Canada). Multivariable logistic regression models were created to identify factors associated with the type of first healthcare provider seen (chiropractor, physician, or physiotherapist). Adjustments to the final models were evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (ROC). Results According to the 5520 analyzed claims, 85.3 % of the patients saw a physician, 11.4 % saw a chiropractor, and 3.2 % saw a physiotherapist. Longer job tenure (odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, P = 0.004), higher gross personal income (OR = 1.06, P = 0.018), mixed-manual job (OR = 1.35, P = 0.004) and previous similar injury (OR = 1.60, P 500,000 inhabitants) and the availability of an early return to work program in the workplace (OR = 0.77, P = 0.035) decreased it. The odds of seeing a physiotherapist rather than a physician increased with increasing age (OR = 1.19, P = 0.019), previous similar injury (OR = 1.71, P 1,500,000 inhabitants; OR = 2.58, P = 0.002) increased the odds of seeing a physiotherapist rather than a chiropractor, while holding a mixed-manual job significantly decreased those odds (OR = 0.63, P = 0.044). The area under the ROC curve of our multivariable models varied from 0.62 to 0.64. Conclusion The type of first healthcare provider sought for occupational back pain is influenced by injury-and work-related factors and by the worker’s age, income and community size. Contrary to previous studies, the workers who first sought a physician did not have higher odds of having a severe injury

Chiropractic care versus Medical care.

<p>Chiropractic care versus Medical care.</p

Flow diagram for the selection of economic evaluations.

<p>Flow diagram for the selection of economic evaluations.</p