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

Charles Elder, Lynn DeBar, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, John Dickerson, William M. Vollmer, Richard (Rick) Deyo, Eric S. Johnson, Mitchell Haas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 25 2018

Fingerprint

Chiropractic
Musculoskeletal Pain
Neck Pain
Back Pain
Patient Care
Propensity Score
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pain
Referral and Consultation
Prospective Studies
Electronic Health Records
Health Expenditures
Comorbidity
Cohort Studies
Economics
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain. / Elder, Charles; DeBar, Lynn; Ritenbaugh, Cheryl; Dickerson, John; Vollmer, William M.; Deyo, Richard (Rick); Johnson, Eric S.; Haas, Mitchell.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25.06.2018, p. 1-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elder, Charles ; DeBar, Lynn ; Ritenbaugh, Cheryl ; Dickerson, John ; Vollmer, William M. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick) ; Johnson, Eric S. ; Haas, Mitchell. / Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018 ; pp. 1-9.
@article{28492cf1317746a8955b654be0fee057,
title = "Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain",
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.",
author = "Charles Elder and Lynn DeBar and Cheryl Ritenbaugh and John Dickerson and Vollmer, {William M.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)} and Johnson, {Eric S.} and Mitchell Haas",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-018-4539-y",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--9",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Effectiveness of Usual Care With or Without Chiropractic Care in Patients with Recurrent Musculoskeletal Back and Neck Pain

AU - Elder, Charles

AU - DeBar, Lynn

AU - Ritenbaugh, Cheryl

AU - Dickerson, John

AU - Vollmer, William M.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

AU - Johnson, Eric S.

AU - Haas, Mitchell

PY - 2018/6/25

Y1 - 2018/6/25

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049043095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049043095&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-018-4539-y

DO - 10.1007/s11606-018-4539-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 29943109

AN - SCOPUS:85049043095

SP - 1

EP - 9

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

ER -