Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Sep;33(9):1469-1477. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4539-y. Epub 2018 Jun 25.

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain.

Author information

1
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA. Charles.Elder@kpchr.org.
2
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
3
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
4
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
5
Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
6
Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality and Healing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN:

Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls.

PARTICIPANTS:

Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months.

MAIN MEASURES:

Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care.

KEY RESULTS:

Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072).

CONCLUSIONS:

We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense.

KEYWORDS:

alternative medicine; back pain; chiropractic; chronic musculoskeletal pain; comparative effectiveness; complementary and integrative medicine; managed care; neck pain; primary care; propensity scoring; spinal manipulation

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center