Training primary care physicians to give limited manual therapy for low back pain: patient outcomes

Over Half of Clinical Trials of Mobilization and Manipulation for Patients With Low Back Pain May Have Limited Real-World Applicability: A Systematic Review of 132 Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the existing body of trials assessing manual therapy for low back pain (LBP) to determine where it falls on the efficacyeffectiveness continuum.

DESIGN

Methodology systematic review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were searched for trials published between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials investigating joint mobilization and manipulation for adults with nonspecific LBP that were available in English.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used the Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum (RITES) tool to score included trials across 4 domains: participant characteristics, trial setting, flexibility of intervention(s), and clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s). Proportions of trials with greater emphasis on efficacy or effectiveness were calculated for each domain.

RESULTS

Of the 132 included trials, a greater proportion emphasized efficacy than effectiveness for domains participant characteristics (50% vs 38%), trial setting (71% vs 20%), and flexibility of intervention(s) (61% vs 25%). The domain clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s) had lower emphasis on efficacy (41% vs 50%).

CONCLUSION

Most trials investigating manual therapy for LBP lack pragmatism across the RITES domains (ie, they emphasize efficacy). To improve real-world implementation, more research emphasizing effectiveness is needed. This could be accomplished by recruiting from more diverse participant pools, involving multiple centers that reflect common clinical practice settings, involving clinicians with a variety of backgrounds/experience, and allowing flexibility in how interventions are delivered. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):532-545. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10962.

Manual therapy applied by general practitioners for nonspecific low back pain: results of the ManRück pilot-study

Background

Nonspecific acute low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for accessing primary care. German guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and physical activity as evidence-based treatments. Manual Therapy (MT) remains controversial. To increase evidence-based treatment options for general practitioners (GPs), a Pilot-Study was set up to gather information about the required conditions and setting for an RCT.

Methods

The open pilot-study assesses recruitment methods for GPs and patients, timelines, data collection and outcomes of treatment immediately (T0) and 1, 6 and 12 weeks after consultation (T1, T2, T3). Inclusion criteria for GPs were: no experience of MT; for patients: adults between 18 and 50 suffering from LBP for less than 14 days.

Study process: Patients’ control-group (CG) was consecutively recruited first and received standard care. After GPs received a single training session in MT lasting two and a half hours, they consecutively recruited patients with LBP to the intervention group (IG). These patients received add-on MT.

Primary outcomes: (A): timelines and recruitment success, (B): assessment tools and sample size evaluation, (C) clinical findings: pain intensity change from baseline to day 3 and time till (a) analgesic use stopped and (b) 2-point pain reduction on an 11-point scale occurred.

Secondary outcomes: functional capacity, referral rate, use of other therapies, sick leave, patient satisfaction.

Results

14 GPs participated, recruiting 42 patients for the CG and 45 for the IG; 49% (56%) of patients were women. Average baseline pain was 5.98 points, SD: ±2.3 (5.98, SD ±1.8).

For an RCT an extended timeline and enhanced recruitment procedures are required. The assessment tools seem appropriate and provided relevant findings: additional MT led to faster pain reduction. IG showed reduced analgesic use and reduced pain at T1 and improved functional capacity by T2.

Conclusions

Before verifying the encouraging findings that additional MT may lead to faster pain reduction and reduced analgesic use via an RCT, the setting, patients’ structure, and inclusion criteria should be considered more closely.

Trial registration

Number: DRKS00003240 Registry: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/. Registration date: 14.11.2011. First patient: March 2012. Funding: the Rut and Klaus Bahlsen Stiftung, Hannover.

A National Study of Primary Care Provided by Osteopathic Physicians

CONTEXT

The establishment of a single accreditation system for graduate medical education in the United States suggests a convergence of osteopathic and allopathic medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics of medical care provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians.

METHODS

Five-year data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were used to study patient visits for primary care, including those for low back pain, neck pain, upper respiratory infection, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. Patient status, primary reason for the visit, chronicity of the presenting problem, injury status, medication orders, physician referrals, source of payment, and time spent with the physician were used to compare osteopathic and allopathic patient visits.

RESULTS

A total of 134,369 patient visits were surveyed, representing a population (SE) of 4.57 billion (220.2 million) patient visits. Osteopathic physicians provided 335.6 (29.9) million patient visits (7.3%), including 217.1 (20.9) million visits for primary care (9.7%). The 5 sentinel symptoms and medical diagnoses accounted for 233.0 (12.4) million primary care visits (10.4%). The mean age of patients seen during primary care visits provided by osteopathic physicians was 46.0 years (95% CI, 44.1-47.9 years) vs 39.9 years (95% CI, 38.8-41.0 years) during visits provided by allopathic physicians (P<.001). Osteopathic patient visits were less likely to involve preventive care (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.68) and more likely to include care for injuries (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.43-1.78). Osteopathic physicians spent slightly less time with patients during visits (mean, 16.4 minutes; 95% CI, 15.7-17.2 minutes) than allopathic physicians (mean, 18.2 minutes; 95% CI, 17.2-19.3 minutes). The most distinctive aspect of osteopathic medical care involved management of low back pain. Therein, osteopathic physicians were less likely to order medication (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75) or to refer patients to another physician (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94), despite having more visits paid through Worker's Compensation (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.01-13.07). Osteopathic and allopathic medical care for upper respiratory infection, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Practice patterns of osteopathic physicians generally mirror those of allopathic physicians except that osteopathic physicians deliver more medical care for older patients and at later stages of disease. Osteopathic medicine should be promoted more vigorously among younger and healthier persons. New opportunities may arise for osteopathic physicians to demonstrate a distinctive approach to low back pain as changes emerge in graduate medical education.

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Continuing Education Programs on Providing Clinical Community Pharmacy Services

Objective. To summarize the effects of media methods used in continuing education (CE) programs on providing clinical community pharmacy services and the methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. Methods. A systematic review was performed using Medline, SciELO, and Scopus databases. The timeline of the search was 1990 to 2013. Searches were conducted in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Results. Nineteen articles of 3990 were included. Fourteen studies used only one media method, and the live method (n=11) was the most frequent (alone or in combination). Only two studies found that the CE program was ineffective or partially effective; these studies used only the live method. Most studies used nonrobust, nonvalidated, and nonstandardized methods to measure effectiveness. The majority of studies focused on the effect of the CE program on modifying the knowledge and skills of the pharmacists. One study assessed the CE program's benefits to patients or clients. Conclusion. No evidence was obtained regarding which media methods are the most effective. Robust and validated methods, as well as assessment standardization, are required to clearly determine whether a particular media method is effective.

Recovery From Chronic Low Back Pain After Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Context: Little is known about recovery after spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain (LBP).

Objective: To assess recovery from chronic LBP after a short regimen of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) in a responder analysis of the OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes In Chronic low back pain (OSTEOPATHIC) Trial.

Methods: A randomized double-blind, sham-controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of 6 OMT sessions over 8 weeks. Recovery was assessed at week 12 using a composite measure of pain recovery (10 mm or less on a 100-mm visual analog scale) and functional recovery (2 or less on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for back-specific functioning). The RRs and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for recovery with OMT were measured, and corresponding cumulative distribution functions were plotted according to baseline LBP intensity and back-specific functioning. Multiple logistic regression was used to compute the OR for recovery with OMT while simultaneously controlling for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to corroborate the primary results.

Results: There were 345 patients who met neither of the recovery criteria at baseline in the primary analyses and 433 patients who met neither or only 1 of these criteria in the sensitivity analyses. There was a large treatment effect for recovery with OMT (RR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.31-4.24; P=.003), which was associated with a clinically relevant NNT (8.9; 95% CI, 5.4-25.5). This significant finding persisted after adjustment for potential confounders (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.43-5.97; P=.003). There was also a significant interaction effect between OMT and comorbid depression (P=.02), indicating that patients without depression were more likely to recover from chronic LBP with OMT (RR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.59-6.50; P<.001) (NNT, 6.5; 95% CI, 4.2-14.5). The cumulative distribution functions demonstrated optimal RR and NNT responses in patients with moderate to severe levels of LBP intensity and back-specific dysfunction at baseline. Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: The OMT regimen was associated with significant and clinically relevant measures for recovery from chronic LBP. A trial of OMT may be useful before progressing to other more costly or invasive interventions in the medical management of patients with chronic LBP. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00315120)

Manual Therapy by General Medical Practitioners for Nonspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: The ManRück Study Protocol of a Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a common reason for accessing primary care. Manual therapy (MT) may be an effective treatment, but data from clinical studies including relevant subgroups and clinical settings are sparse. The objective of this article is to describe the protocol of a study that will measure whether an MT protocol provided by general medical practitioners will lead to a faster pain reduction in patients with nonspecific LBP than does standard medical care.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study is an experimental pre-/postintervention design. The intervention consists of add-on MT treatment by general medical practitioners who have received MT training but are otherwise inexperienced in mobilization techniques. Participating general medical practitioners (n = 10) will consecutively recruit and treat patients before and after their training, serving as their own internal controls. The primary end point is a combined outcome assessing change in pain score over days 0 to 3 and time until pain is reduced by 2 points on an 11-point numeric pain scale and painkiller use is stopped. Secondary outcomes are patients' functional capacities assessed using a questionnaire, amount of sick leave taken, patient satisfaction, and referrals for further treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German clinical trials register: DRKS-ID DRKS00003240.

Acupuncture for acute non-specific low back pain: a protocol for a randomised, controlled multicentre intervention study in general practice--the Acuback Study

INTRODUCTION

Some general practitioners (GPs) treat acute low back pain (LBP) with acupuncture, despite lacking evidence of its effectiveness for this condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single treatment session with acupuncture can reduce time to recovery when applied in addition to standard LBP treatment according to the Norwegian national guidelines. Analyses of prognostic factors for recovery and cost-effectiveness will also be carried out.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this randomised, controlled multicentre study in general practice in Southern Norway, 270 patients will be allocated into one of two treatment groups, using a web-based application based on block randomisation. Outcome assessor will be blinded for group allocation of the patients. The control group will receive standard treatment, while the intervention group will receive standard treatment plus acupuncture treatment. There will be different GPs treating the two groups, and both groups will just have one consultation. Adults who consult their GP because of acute LBP will be included. Patients with nerve root affection, 'red flags', pregnancy, previous sick leave more than 14 days and disability pension will be excluded. The primary outcome of the study is the median time to recovery (in days). The secondary outcomes are rated global improvement, back-specific functional status, sick leave, medication, GP visits and side effects. A pilot study will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participation is based on informed written consent. The authors will apply for an ethical approval from the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics when the study protocol is published. Results from this study, positive or negative, will be disseminated in scientific medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01439412.

Stop Using the Modified Work APGAR to Measure Job Satisfaction

Background. The psychometric properties of the Modified Work APGAR (MWA) scale are not established, yet researchers use this scale as an overall measure of job satisfaction. Objective. Perform psychometric analyses on the MWA scale using data from two populations. Methods. A landmark occupational cohort and a clinical cohort are populations with low back pain studied. The first five items of the MWA scale measure social support from coworkers, one item measures dissatisfaction with job tasks, and the sixth item measures lack of social support from a supervisor. Exploratory principal components analyses were conducted in both cohorts. Results. In both cohorts, the first five items of the MWA scale loaded consistently onto one factor, social support from coworkers subscale. Conclusions. Unless researchers are interested in measuring social support from coworkers only, future studies should use other reliable and valid instruments to measure a broad range of psychosocial work characteristics.

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors important to manual therapy competency development: a delphi investigation

A learner's development of orthopaedic manual physical therapy (OMPT) psychomotor skills may be influenced by selected intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The purposes of this study were to identify the factors that influence learners' development of manual physical therapy competencies and to define each factor as intrinsic or extrinsic. A 3-round Delphi method survey and a retrospective review of the data were used to develop composite scores and rankings. Eighty manual physical therapy educators participated in the 3 rounds. Thirty-six factor descriptor statements associated with manual physical therapy competency were established and further categorized as intrinsic (19 total), extrinsic (10 total), or conceptual outliers (7 total). Cognitive Processing ranked as the most important factor influencing manual physical therapy competency development. Adaptation ranked second, followed by Science Knowledge. This study is the first to establish manual physical therapy educational factors associated with attainment of competency. The majority of the factors distill into the theory of extrinsic and intrinsic factors identified by Schmidt and Lee. The outcomes of this study identify the factors to which OMPT educators should give particular attention when developing and executing the learning experiences for their learners.

How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of 'completely recovered'. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research.

Factors impacting on doctors' management of acute low back pain: a systematic review

The aim of this review was to determine the factors that impact on doctors' management of patients with acute low back pain. A methodological assessment of databases (Medline, EMBASE, Psychinfo, BIOSIS, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) identified papers which were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from accepted papers, and the internal validity and strength of the evidence were determined using valid and reliable scales. The search generated a total of 28 papers [quantitative (n=27), qualitative (n=1) methodologies]. Themes were identified from the accepted papers: education (n=18), knowledge of clinical guidelines and impact on management (n=7), and doctors' demographics (n=4). There was consistent evidence that doctors did not adhere to clinical guidelines when performing a spinal assessment. There was inconsistent evidence that education increased adherence with acute LBP guideline recommendations in terms of referral rates to physiotherapy, for investigations, to secondary care and for maintaining patients at work. Strategies to address the factors impacting on doctors' management of acute LBP are required; these would lead to improvement in patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Content and outcome of usual primary care for back pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Most patients seeking help for back pain are managed in primary care.

AIM

To describe the content and outcome of 'usual care' for low back pain in primary care trials.

DESIGN OF STUDY

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials published since 1998.

SETTING

Primary care.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials of back pain in adults were scrutinised to obtain data on treatment and outcome measures in groups receiving usual primary care. A narrative review of the resulting heterogeneous data was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were identified for analysis. Overall the exact nature of the treatment received in the 'usual' primary care group was poorly recorded. Medication was frequently used, and there were suggestions that levels of opioid prescription were higher than might be expected from clinical guidelines. Requesting of plain-film X-rays occurred more often than recommended. There was very little information to suggest that doctors were promoting physical activity for patients with back pain. Disability scores (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and pain scores improved over time for patients with acute or subacute back pain, but not for those with chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

Treatment received by patients with back pain was varied and often not in line with back-pain guidelines, particularly with respect to opioid prescription and X-ray investigation. The content of the 'usual care' arm in trials is crucial to interpreting the outcome of studies, but was poorly described in the papers reviewed. Future trials should more fully describe the 'usual care' arm.

Association of psychosocial work characteristics with low back pain outcomes

STUDY DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of 295 patients with acute low back pain presenting to 31 primary care physicians in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the hypothesis that dissatisfaction with job tasks and lack of social support from coworkers and supervisor are associated with poorer low back pain outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Psychosocial work characteristics are thought to be associated with the occurrence, report, and development of long-term disability from low back pain, but the studies are inconclusive. METHOD.: Three psychosocial work characteristics were separately compared to these outcomes: time to functional recovery, attainment of complete recovery, and clinically relevant change on the Modified Roland Scale.

RESULTS

Relative to subjects with more social support from coworkers, subjects with less social support from coworkers have 1.55 (95% CI = 1.04-2.34) times the risk of not attaining complete recovery from low back pain at 8 weeks. For all other outcomes evaluated in this study, there was not an association with the psychosocial work characteristics. Biomechanical demands were found not to modify this association.

CONCLUSION

This analysis provides evidence that social support in the workplace from coworkers but not social support from a supervisor or job task satisfaction are likely targets for intervention.

A systematic review of evaluation in formal continuing medical education

INTRODUCTION

Physicians spend a considerable amount of time in Continuing Medical Education (CME) to maintain their medical licenses. CME evaluation studies vary greatly in evaluation methods, levels of evaluation, and length of follow-up. Standards for CME evaluation are needed to enable comparison among different studies and to detect factors influencing CME evaluation.

METHODS

A review of the CME evaluation literature was conducted on primary research studies published from January 2000 to January 2006. Studies assessing only satisfaction with CME were excluded, as were studies where fewer than 50% of the participants were practicing physicians. Thirty-two studies were included in the analyses. Determinations were made about evaluation methods, outcome measures, and follow-up assessment.

RESULTS

Only 2 of 32 reviewed studies addressed all evaluation levels: physician changes in knowledge and attitudes (level 2), practices (level 3), and improved patient health status (level 4). None of the studies using self-developed instruments (n = 10) provided reliability and validity information. Only 6 studies used validated scales. Twenty studies had a follow-up period of 6 months or less, and 11 had a follow-up period between 1 and 2 years.

DISCUSSION

A gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of CME would include assessment of all 4 levels of evaluation. A valid, reliable, and adaptable CME evaluation questionnaire addressing variables in the second level is needed to allow comparison of effectiveness across CME interventions. A minimum 1-year postintervention follow-up period may also be indicated to investigate the sustainability of intervention outcomes.

A perspective for considering the risks and benefits of spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain

The purpose of this study was to determine if patients who do not receive manipulation for their low back pain (LBP) are at an increased risk for worsening disability compared to patients receiving an exercise intervention without manipulation. One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients with LBP were randomly assigned to receive manipulation and an exercise intervention (n = 70) or an exercise intervention without manipulation (n = 61). Patients were classified as to whether they had experienced a worsening in disability upon follow-up. Relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) statistics and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Patients who completed the exercise intervention without manipulation were eight (95% CI: 1.1, 63.5) times more likely to experience a worsening in disability than patients who received manipulation. The NNT with manipulation to prevent one additional patient from experiencing a worsening in disability was 9.9 (95% CI: 4.9, 65.3) and 4 weeks with manipulation was 11.6 (95% CI: 5.2, 219.2). The results of this study offer an additional perspective for considering the risks and benefits of spinal manipulation and help to inform the integration of current evidence for spinal manipulation into healthcare policy.

Effects of visual feedback on manipulation performance and patient ratings

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the explicit targeted outcome (a criterion standard) and visual feedback on the immediate change in and the short-term retention of performance by novice operators for a high-velocity, low-amplitude procedure under realistic conditions.

METHODS

This study used a single-blind randomized experimental design. Forty healthy male (n = 26) and female (n = 14) chiropractic student volunteers with no formal training in spinal manipulative therapy participated. Biomechanical parameters of an L4 mammillary push spinal manipulation procedure performed by novice operators were quantified. Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups and paired. One group received visual feedback from load-time histories of their performance compared with a criterion standard before a repeat performance. Participants then performed a 10-minute distractive exercise consisting of National Board of Chiropractic Examiners review questions. The second group received no feedback. An independent rating of performance was conducted for each participant by his/her partner. Results were analyzed separately for biomechanical parameters for partner ratings using the Student t test with levels of significance (P < .01) adjusted for repeated testing.

RESULTS

Expressed in percent change for each individual, visual feedback was associated with change in the biomechanical performance of group 2, a minimum of 14% and a maximum of 32%. Statistical analysis rating of the performance favored the feedback group on 4 of the parameters (fast, P < .0008; force, P < .0056; precision, P < .0034; and composite, P < .0016).

CONCLUSION

Quantitative feedback, based on a tangible conceptualization of the target performance, resulted in immediate and significant improvement in all measured parameters. Newly developed skills were retained at least over short intervals even after distractive tasks. Learning what to do with feedback on one's own performance may be more important than the classic teaching of how to do it.

Manipulative therapy and/or NSAIDs for acute low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial [ACTRN012605000036617]

Background

Acute low back pain is a common condition resulting in pain and disability. Current national and international guidelines advocate general practitioner care including advice and paracetamol (4 g daily in otherwise well adults) as the first line of care for people with acute low back pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are advocated in many guidelines as second line management options for patients with acute low back pain who are not recovering. No studies have explored the role of NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to first line management for acute low back pain. The primary aim of this study is to investigate if NSAIDs and/or SMT in addition to general practitioner advice and paracetamol results in shorter recovery times for patients with acute low back pain. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether the addition of SMT and/or NSAIDs influences pain, disability and global perceived effect at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks after onset of therapy for patients with significant acute low back pain.

Methods/design

This paper presents the rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial examining the addition of NSAIDs and/or SMT in 240 people who present to their general practitioner with significant acute low back pain.

Perceptions of Provider Communication and Patient Satisfaction for Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the relationship between perceptions of provider communication and treatment satisfaction for acute, work-related low-back pain (LBP).

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, 544 working adults (67% men) with acute LBP provided 1- and 3-month assessments of pain, function, and work status.

RESULTS

In a multiple regression analysis, positive provider communication (took problem seriously, explained condition clearly, tried to understand my job, advised to prevent re-injury) explained more variation in patient satisfaction at 1 month than was explained by clinical improvements in pain and function. At 3 months, clinical improvement variables surpassed provider communication as predictors of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with work-related LBP place a high value on provider counseling and education, especially during the acute stage (<1 month) of treatment.

Procedural skills in spinal manipulation: do prerequisites matter?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal manipulation has undergone a resurgence of interest. Developing evidence suggests a relationship between safety, skill and clinical outcome. Training programs are variable and range from extensive formalized curricula to weekend seminars and individual demonstrations. Systematic study of a relationship between prerequisites and skill development has not been conducted.

PURPOSE

This project evaluated programmatic differences in prerequisites of students during their training for spinal manipulation with respect to quantitative biomechanical evidence of procedural control and skill of performance of a novel task.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The research used an experimental design comparing two cohorts involved in separate training programs at different institutions that had distinguishing characteristics in methods of prerequisites to manipulation training.

METHODS

A common manipulation procedure (L4 mamillary push [L4MP]) was chosen as a standard test maneuver. Performance of the procedure on initial effort by two cohorts of students (n=38 vs n=39) entering into training for lumbar spine procedures was measured. Comparisons were made based on quantitative biomechanical parameters to assess control and skill. Results were compared with a cohort of experts as a reference standard.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed between the performance measures of the two cohorts. The more skilled performance group was more similar to the expert reference standard than was the lesser skilled group.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration, extent and content of prerequisites for learning the dynamic and complex manual skills for spinal manipulation can significantly influence the level of skill attainment even early in the course of training.

Interprofessional collaboration and job satisfaction of chiropractic physicians

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that chiropractic physicians (DCs) are growing in number and legitimacy in the community of health care professionals, little recent research describes how their relationships with medical doctors (MDs) affect their job and career perceptions.

OBJECTIVE

This study explores interprofessional relations by identifying factors associated with variations in how DCs evaluate their interaction with MDs. It also adapts a previously validated multifaceted measure of MD job satisfaction for use with DCs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of 311 DC physicians in North Carolina.

RESULTS

The hypothesized multifaceted nature of DC job satisfaction was confirmed. Four distinct job facets and global career satisfaction were measured effectively in DCs. DCs' career satisfaction is related to satisfaction with compensation, intrinsic motivation of relating to patients, and having positive relationships with DC colleagues. DCs report referring patients to MDs more often than they report MDs referring patients to them. Satisfaction with relationships between DCs and MDs is relatively low and is strongly linked to the quantity of referrals from MDs and the perception that MDs practice collaboratively with DCs. However, DCs' global career satisfaction is unrelated to their relationships with MDs.

CONCLUSION

Global career satisfaction of DCs is relatively high and unaffected by the low level of satisfaction DCs report having with their relationships with MDs. These findings suggest that despite increasing interaction and interdependence, DCs' relationship with MDs is of minor importance in their professional self-image.

Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain of less than three months' duration

OBJECTIVES

To review the efficacy of spinal manipulation for low back pain of less than 3 months duration. Data sources Randomized clinical trials on spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain were identified by searching EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Study selection Outcome measures of interest were pain, return to work, adverse events, disability, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with therapy. Data extraction Methodological assessment of the trials was performed using the PEDro scale. Trials were grouped according to the type of intervention, outcome measures, and follow-up time. Where there were multiple studies with sufficient homogeneity of interventions, subjects, and outcomes, the results were analyzed in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Data synthesis Thirty-four papers (27 trials) met the inclusion criteria. Three small studies showed spinal manipulative therapy produces better outcomes than placebo therapy or no treatment for nonspecific low back pain of less than 3 months duration. The effects are, however, small. The findings of individual studies suggest that spinal manipulative therapy also seems to be more effective than massage and short wave therapy. It is not clear if spinal manipulative therapy is more effective than exercise, usual physiotherapy, or medical care in the first 4 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulative therapy produces slightly better outcomes than placebo therapy, no treatment, massage, and short wave therapy for nonspecific low back pain of less than 3 months duration. Spinal manipulative therapy, exercise, usual physiotherapy, and medical care appear to produce similar outcomes in the first 4 weeks of treatment.

Muscle energy technique in patients with acute low back pain: a pilot clinical trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, pilot clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

Examining the outcomes of Muscle Energy Technique (MET) in patients with acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND

MET is commonly used to treat patients with acute low back pain. No randomized controlled trials examining the outcomes of this treatment in symptomatic populations has been reported in the literature.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Ten men and 9 women diagnosed with acute low back pain were randomly assigned with stratification to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients were matched according to age, gender, and initial Oswestry score. The control group received supervised neuromuscular re-education and resistance training while the experimental group received the same exercises coupled with MET. Both groups received the selected treatment 8 times over a 4-week period (2 times per week). Patients completed an Oswestry Disability Index on their first and eighth visits and change scores were calculated.

RESULTS

A 2-tailed t test (P < .05) demonstrated a statistically significant difference with the experimental group showing greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index score than the control group.

CONCLUSION

MET combined with supervised motor control and resistance exercises may be superior to neuromuscular re-education and resistance training for decreasing disability and improving function in patients with acute low back pain.

Physicians' and patients' attitudes toward manual medicine: implications for continuing medical education

INTRODUCTION

Manual medicine (MM) is a physical modality infrequently used in primary care clinics. This study examines primary care physicians' experience with and attitudes toward the use of MM in the primary care setting, as well as patients' experience with and attitudes toward MM.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of physicians (54.3% response rate) attending a 1-week primary care continuing medical education (CME) conference in Kentucky. Similar surveys were also mailed to a random sample of primary care patients (35.3% response rate) living in a service region in which most conference attendees practiced.

RESULTS

Similar responses were obtained from physicians and patients. A majority (81% and 76%, respectively) of physicians and patients felt that MM was safe, and over half (56% of physicians and 59% of patients) felt that MM should be available in the primary care setting. Although less than half (40%) of the physicians reported any educational exposure to MM and less than one-quarter (20%) have administered MM in their practice, most (71%) respondents endorsed desiring more instruction in MM. The majority of those seeking additional educational exposure (56%) were willing to pay for MM training that included CME credit.

DISCUSSION

This survey suggests that primary care physicians feel that there is currently insufficient education in MM. The majority of physicians and patients feel that MM is beneficial, safe, and appropriate for use in a primary care setting. Thus, there may be a rising demand for quality instruction in MM from physical medicine doctors and other licensed therapists who currently practice MM.

Developing skilled performance of lumbar spine manipulation

OBJECTIVE

To quantify elements of spinal manipulation therapy performance and to test the strategy of combined rehearsal and quantitative feedback as a means of enhancing student skill development.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled study.

SETTING

Chiropractic college.

SUBJECTS

Thirty-nine chiropractic student volunteers entering the manipulation technique training course participated after providing informed consent.

METHODS

Student performance of lumbar spinal manipulation therapy was quantified at the beginning, middle, and end of a trimester with a manipulation table imbedded with an AMTI force plate. Loads acting passing through the L5/S1 functional spinal unit were estimated by inverse dynamics. Participating students rehearsed the mamillary push, diversified procedure following either the standard curriculum alone or a modified curriculum adding a training aid as assigned on a randomized basis. Student's t and chi(2) tests were used to explore and describe biomechanical parameter changes over time as the semester progressed.

RESULTS

Significant changes in performance between the standard curriculum and modified curriculum were observed in several biomechanical parameters.

CONCLUSION

The reported project used a rehearsal program defined empirically and was self-administered in practice by the student. Results demonstrated significant changes in performance of spinal manipulation by students using the training aid instrument versus those who did not. With quantitative training aids and biomechanical measurement systems, future training programs may be optimized and tested.