Assessing patient-centered care in patients with chronic health conditions attending chiropractic practice:protocol for a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: The management of chronic health conditions increasingly requires an organized, coordinated, and patient-centered approach to care. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been adopted in primary care to improve care delivery for those with chronic health conditions. Chiropractors manage chronic health conditions; however, little is known if such care is patient-centered. The primary aim of this study is to determine to what extent chiropractic patients with chronic health conditions perceive their care is patient-centred. We will assess concordance with the CCM using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey in study patients. We will also explore perception of how patient-centered the care provided by chiropractors is for those with chronic health conditions according to patients and chiropractors. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use a sequential mixed methods design with quantitative priority. In the quantitative component patients will complete a written questionnaire providing sociodemographic, health status, and health care interaction information, all of which will serve as the independent variables. Patients will also complete a modified version of the PACIC; the average overall score will be the dependent variable. In the qualitative component semi-structured interviews and focus groups with patients and chiropractors will be conducted. A pilot study will be conducted to determine if the modified PACIC will perform adequately in measuring concordance with the CCM for chiropractic care. Pilot testing will also allow for assessment of the interview and focus groups guides. Variables found to be significantly associated will be included in a multivariate linear regression analysis to identify significant predictors of the dependent variable. Qualitative data will be analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis to provide meaning to the quantitative results. DISCUSSION: There is a paucity of research describing the extent to which chiropractic care for patients with chronic health conditions is concordant with the CCM. This study will examine this relationship and the perceptions and experiences of patients and chiropractors regarding how patient-centered chiropractic care is for these patients

Understanding patient profiles and characteristics of current chiropractic practice: a cross-sectional Ontario Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (O-COAST)

Objectives There is no current detailed profile of people seeking chiropractic care in Canada. We describe the profiles of chiropractors’ practice and the reasons, nature of the care provided to their patients and extent of interprofessional collaborations in Ontario, Canada. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting Primary care setting in Ontario, Canada. Participants We randomly recruited chiropractors from a list of registered chiropractors (n=3978) in active practice in 2015. Of the 135 randomly selected chiropractors, 120 were eligible, 43 participated and 42 completed the study.Outcome measures Each chiropractor recorded information for up to 100 consecutive patient encounters, documenting patient health profiles, reasons for encounter, diagnoses and care provided. Descriptive statistics summarised chiropractor, patient and encounter characteristics, with analyses accounting for clustering and design effects. Results Chiropractors provided data on 3523 chiropractor-patient encounters. More than 65% of participating chiropractors were male, mean age 44 years and had practised on average 15 years. The typical patient was female (59% of encounters), between 45 and 64 years (43%) and retired (21%) or employed in business and administration (13%). Most (39.4%) referrals were from other patients, with 6.8% from physicians. Approximately 68% of patients paid out of pocket or claimed extended health insurance for care. Most common diagnoses were back (49%, 95% CI 44 to 56) and neck (15%, 95% CI 13 to 18) problems, with few encounters related to maintenance/preventive care (0.86%, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.9) and non-musculoskeletal problems (1.3%, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.3). The most common treatments included spinal manipulation (72%), soft tissue therapy (70%) and mobilisation (35%). Conclusions This is the most comprehensive profile to date of chiropractic practice in Canada. People who present to Ontario chiropractors are mostly adults with a musculoskeletal condition. Our results can be used by stakeholders to make informed decisions about workforce development, education and healthcare policy related to chiropractic care

Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured Exercise Programs for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE Evaluate benefits and harms of structured exercise programs for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases (inception to 17 May 2022). Eligible RCTs targeted structured exercise programs compared to placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of exercise could be isolated). We extracted outcomes, appraised risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS We screened 2503 records (after initial screening through Cochrane RCT Classifier and Cochrane Crowd) and 398 full text RCTs. Thirteen RCTs rated with overall low or unclear risk of bias were synthesized. Assessing individual exercise types (predominantly very low certainty evidence), pain reduction was associated with aerobic exercise and Pilates vs. no intervention, and motor control exercise vs. sham. Improved function was associated with mixed exercise vs. usual care, and Pilates vs. no intervention. Temporary increased minor pain was associated with mixed exercise vs. no intervention, and yoga vs. usual care. Little to no difference was found for other comparisons and outcomes. When pooling exercise types, exercise vs. no intervention probably reduces pain in adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.33, 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.08) and functional limitations in adults and older adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.05) (moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS With moderate certainty, structured exercise programs probably reduce pain and functional limitations in adults and older people with CPLBP

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months. CONCLUSION Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE: To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval  -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education or Advice for Chronic Primary low back pain in Adults

PURPOSE: Evaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Education/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty

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

Patients' Perceptions of the Primary Care Characteristics in a Model of Interprofessional Patient-centred Collaboration between Chiropractors and Physicians

Background: Considerable attention has been paid to evaluating the roles and relationships of professionals participating in team-based or collaborative practice; however, less attention has been paid to exploring the patients’ views and impact of such practice despite claims of it being patient-centred. Objectives: To examine the relationship between patient and provider characteristics and patients’ ratings of measures of quality of care and integration, and to explore the patient views of care delivered in a patient-centred collaborative study involving chiropractors and physicians. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Method: A mixed methods sequential approach with a quantitative priority was used in data analysis. Quantitative data were collected from 2597 patients participating in a collaborative study involving chiropractors and physicians and 530 patients attending chiropractors not involved in collaborative care. All participants presented with musculoskeletal pain. The Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS) was modified and scores from six of its scales were used to assess attributes of quality patient-centred care between the two study groups. Qualitative transcript-based data from six purposefully selected focus groups was analyzed using an interpretivist approach. Results: The revised PCAS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. Patients in both study groups received quality, patient-centred care. Patients’ reporting being completely satisfied and feeling improved by their care was positively associated with rating chiropractors as high performers on all scales. Survey findings were confirmed in focus groups of study patients. Patients appreciated positive interpersonal interactions, sharing in the treatment decision-making process, having a choice in provider and treatment, and the provision of holistic care. Patients perceived that collaboration between chiropractors and physicians varied, favouring those who were co-located. Patients with chronic or co-morbid conditions desired greater involvement in their care. Patients felt sharing of clinical information was more important than co-location as facilitating coordination and integration of collaborative care. Conclusion: The study suggests that patients suffering from musculoskeletal pain benefit from interprofessional collaborative care that includes improved access to and choice of providers and treatment options, as well as enhanced interprofessional communication and coordination of care.Ph