| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Axén, Iben, et al.
(författare)
-
The Nordic maintenance care program : the clinical use of identified indications for preventive care
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 2045-709X. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and has been found to be recurrent and persistent in a majority of cases. Chiropractors have a preventive strategy, maintenance care (MC), aimed towards minimizing recurrence and progression of such conditions. The indications for recommending MC have been identified in the Nordic countries from hypothetical cases. This study aims to investigate whether these indications are indeed used in the clinical encounter.Methods: Data were collected in a multi-center observational study in which patients consulted a chiropractor for their non-specific LBP. Patient baseline information was a) previous duration of the LBP, b) the presence of previous episodes of LBP and c) early improvement with treatment. The chiropractors were asked if they deemed each individual patient an MC candidate. Logistic regression analyses (uni– and multi-level) were used to investigate the association of the patient variables with the chiropractor’s decision.Results: The results showed that “previous episodes” with LBP was the strongest predictor for recommending MC, and that the presence of all predictors strengthens the frequency of this recommendation. However, there was considerable heterogeneity among the participating chiropractors concerning the recommendation of MC.Conclusions: The study largely confirms the clinical use of the previously identified indications for recommending MC for recurrent and persistent LBP. Previous episodes of LBP was the strongest indicator.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aboagye, Emmanuel, et al.
(författare)
-
Manual therapy versus advice to stay active for nonspecific back and/or neck pain : A cost-effectiveness analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-709X. ; 30:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain are the most common musculoskeletal disorders worldwide, and imply suffering and substantial societal costs, hence effective interventions are crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy compared with advice to stay active for working age persons with nonspecific back and/or neck pain.METHODS: The two interventions were: a maximum of 6 manual therapy sessions within 6 weeks, including spinal manipulation/mobilization, massage and stretching, performed by a naprapath (index group), respectively information from a physician on the importance to stay active and on how to cope with pain, according to evidence-based advice, at 2 occasions within 3 weeks (control group). A cost-effectiveness analysis with a societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial including 409 persons followed for one year, in 2005. The outcomes were health-related Quality of Life (QoL) encoded from the SF-36 and pain intensity. Direct and indirect costs were calculated based on intervention and medication costs and sickness absence data. An incremental cost per health related QoL was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed.RESULTS: The difference in QoL gains was 0.007 (95% CI - 0.010 to 0.023) and the mean improvement in pain intensity was 0.6 (95% CI 0.068-1.065) in favor of manual therapy after one year. Concerning the QoL outcome, the differences in mean cost per person was estimated at - 437 EUR (95% CI - 1302 to 371) and for the pain outcome the difference was - 635 EUR (95% CI - 1587 to 246) in favor of manual therapy. The results indicate that manual therapy achieves better outcomes at lower costs compared with advice to stay active. The sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main results.CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that manual therapy for nonspecific back and/or neck pain is slightly less costly and more beneficial than advice to stay active for this sample of working age persons. Since manual therapy treatment is at least as cost-effective as evidence-based advice from a physician, it may be recommended for neck and low back pain. Further health economic studies that may confirm those findings are warranted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56954776. Retrospectively registered 12 September 2006, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56954776 .
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Axen, Iben, et al.
(författare)
-
Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 2045-709X. ; 28:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known.Main text: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies.Conclusions: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
|
|
