Does dissatisfaction with physicians lead patients to alternative practitioners?

A cross-sectional survey exploring clinician perceptions of a novel Medicaid back pain policy

OBJECTIVES

Oregon Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan, or OHP) implemented an innovative policy in 2016 that increased coverage of evidence-based non-pharmacologic therapies (NPT, including physical therapy, massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture) while restricting opioids, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of clinicians who see back pain patients and can prescribe pharmacologic therapies and/or refer to NPTs and clinicians who directly provide NPT therapies affected by the policy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered to Oregon prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians between December 2019 and February 2020. The survey was completed by 107 prescribing clinicians and 83 NPT clinicians.

RESULTS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had only moderate levels of familiarity with core elements of the policy. Prescribing clinicians had higher levels of frustration caring for OHP patients with back pain than NPT clinicians (83 vs. 34%, p<0.001) and were less confident in their ability to provide effective care (73 vs. 85%, p = .025). Eighty-six percent of prescribing clinicians and 83% of NPT clinicians thought active NPT treatments were effective; 74 and 70% thought passive NPT treatments were effective. Forty percent of prescribing clinicians and 25% of NPT clinicians (p<0.001) thought medically-light therapies were effective, while 29% of prescribing clinicians and 10% of NPT clinicians thought medically-intensive treatments were effective (p=0.001). Prescribing clinicians thought increased access to NPTs improved outcomes, while opinions were less consistent on the impact of restricting opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had varying perspectives of a Medicaid coverage policy to increase evidence-based back pain care. Understanding these perspectives is important for contextualizing policy effectiveness.

Complementary and alternative medicine use among outpatients during the 2015 MERS outbreak in South Korea: a cross-sectional study

Background

The 2015 MERS outbreak in South Korea was the largest event outside of the Middle East. Under such circumstances, individuals tend to resort to non-conventional solutions such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to manage health. Thus, this study aims to examine characteristics of CAM use among outpatients in a community hospital setting during the 2015 MERS outbreak and to assess potential predictors of CAM use during the epidemic.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 331 patients (response rate: 82.75%) at a community hospital located in Seoul, South Korea. The survey instrument included 36 questions on the use of CAM, demographic characteristics, health status, and respondents’ perceptions and concerns about MERS infection. Chi-square test and logistic regression were conducted for data analysis using SPSS ver. 21.0., and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.

Results

76.1% of respondents used one or more types of CAM modalities during the MERS outbreak. Consumption of easily accessible modalities such as multivitamin (51.2%) and food products (32.1%) was most popular, and the majority of CAM users relied on mass media (52.4%) and the internet (27.4%) to obtain information on CAM. The use of CAM was associated with age between 40 and 49, age over 50, prior CAM use, and dissatisfaction with the government response to the MERS outbreak.

Conclusions

CAM was commonly used by outpatients during the 2015 MERS outbreak in Korea, and mass media was the main source of information. Establishing a media platform is of paramount importance to provide reliable information and ensure the safety of its use.