Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Previous research has investigated utilization rates, who sees chiropractors, for what reasons, and the type of care that chiropractors provide. However, these studies have not been comprehensively synthesized. We aimed to give a global overview by summarizing the current literature on the utilization of chiropractic services, reasons for seeking care, patient profiles, and assessment and treatment provided. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature using keywords and subject headings (MeSH or ChiroSH terms) from database inception to January 2016. Eligible studies: 1) were published in English or French; 2) were case series, descriptive, cross-sectional, or cohort studies; 3) described patients receiving chiropractic services; and 4) reported on the following theme(s): utilization rates of chiropractic services; reasons for attending chiropractic care; profiles of chiropractic patients; or, types of chiropractic services provided. Paired reviewers independently screened all citations and data were extracted from eligible studies. We provided descriptive numerical analysis, e.g. identifying the median rate and interquartile range (e.g., chiropractic utilization rate) stratified by study population or condition. Results The literature search retrieved 14,149 articles; 328 studies (reported in 337 articles) were relevant and reported on chiropractic utilization (245 studies), reason for attending chiropractic care (85 studies), patient demographics (130 studies), and assessment and treatment provided (34 studies). Globally, the median 12-month utilization of chiropractic services was 9.1% (interquartile range (IQR): 6.7%-13.1%) and remained stable between 1980 and 2015. Most patients consulting chiropractors were female (57.0%, IQR: 53.2%-60.0%) with a median age of 43.4 years (IQR: 39.6-48.0), and were employed (median: 77.3%, IQR: 70.3%-85.0%). The most common reported reasons for people attending chiropractic care were (median) low back pain (49.7%, IQR: 43.0%-60.2%), neck pain (22.5%, IQR: 16.3%-24.5%), and extremity problems (10.0%, IQR: 4.3%-22.0%). The most common treatment provided by chiropractors included (median) spinal manipulation (79.3%, IQR: 55.4%-91.3%), soft-tissue therapy (35.1%, IQR: 16.5%-52.0%), and formal patient education (31.3%, IQR: 22.6%-65.0%). Conclusions This comprehensive overview on the world-wide state of the chiropractic profession documented trends in the literature over the last four decades. The findings support the diverse nature of chiropractic practice, although common trends emerged.

Background There is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research. Methods The intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood? Results A complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change. Conclusions We have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.

This commentary brings the 2017–2019 thematic series What is Chiropractic? to a close. The 18 papers published in the series contribute to a better understanding of what chiropractic is, where chiropractors practice and function, who seeks their care, what chiropractors do, and how they interact with other healthcare professionals. Several papers in the series highlighted deeply rooted disagreements within chiropractic about fundamental issues pertaining to ideology, acceptance of scientific evidence as the basis for clinical practice and the future of chiropractic. If the chiropractic profession is to remain relevant in today’s evidence-based healthcare environment, there is an urgent for the profession to undertake further research to describe what chiropractic is, what chiropractors do, and provide evidence for the value of these activities to patients and healthcare decision makers.

Background Imaging is overused in the management of low back pain (LBP). Interventions designed to decrease non-indicated imaging have predominantly targeted practitioner education alone; however, these are typically ineffective. Barriers to reducing imaging have been identified for both patients and practitioners. Interventions aimed at addressing barriers in both these groups concurrently may be more effective. The Behaviour Change Wheel provides a structured framework for developing implementation interventions to facilitate behavioural change. The aim of this study was to develop an implementation intervention aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, by targeting both general medical practitioner (GP) and patient barriers concurrently. Methods The Behaviour Change Wheel was used to identify the behaviours requiring change, and guide initial development of an implementation intervention. Preliminary testing of the intervention was performed with: 1) content review by experts in the field; and 2) qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and 10 healthcare consumers, to determine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of the intervention in clinical practice. Results informed further development of the implementation intervention. Results Patient pressure on the GP to order imaging, and the inability of the GP to manage a clinical consult for LBP without imaging, were determined to be the primary behaviours leading to referral for non-indicated imaging. The developed implementation intervention consisted of a purpose-developed clinical resource for GPs to use with patients during a LBP consult, and a GP training session. The implementation intervention was designed to provide GP and patient education, remind GPs of preferred behaviour, provide clinical decision support, and facilitate GP-patient communication. Preliminary testing found experts, GPs, and healthcare consumers were supportive of most aspects of the developed resource, and thought use would likely decrease non-indicated imaging for LBP. Suggestions for improvement of the implementation intervention were incorporated into a final version. Conclusions The developed implementation intervention, aiming to reduce non-indicated imaging for LBP, was informed by behaviour change theory and preliminary testing. Further testing is required to assess feasibility of use in clinical practice, and the effectiveness of the implementation intervention in reducing imaging for LBP, before large-scale implementation can be considered.

This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for primary care visits and is the leading contributor to years lived with disability worldwide. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of patients and primary care team members related to their experiences with a new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP. Methods We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study. Data were collected using a combination of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included adults (> 18 years of age) with LBP and primary care team members who participated in a physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Results We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with patients with LBP (10 women; median age of 52) as well as three focus group discussions with a total of 20 primary care team members representing three teams. Four themes (each with sub-themes) were constructed: 1) enhanced primary care delivery for LBP (improved access and engagement in physiotherapy care, improved communication and care integration between the physiotherapist and primary care team, less inappropriate use of healthcare resources); 2) positive patient experiences and perceived outcomes with the new model of care (physiotherapist built therapeutic alliance, physiotherapist provided comprehensive care, improved confidence in managing LBP, decreased impact of pain on daily life); 3) positive primary care team experiences with the new model of care (physiotherapist fit well within the primary care team, physiotherapist provided expertise on LBP for the primary care team, satisfaction in being able to offer a needed service for patients); and 4) challenges implementing the new model of care (challenges with prompt access to physiotherapy care, challenges making the physiotherapist the first contact for LBP, and opportunities to optimize communication between the physiotherapist and primary care team). Conclusions A new physiotherapist-led primary care model for LBP was described by patients and primary care team members as contributing to positive experiences and perceived outcomes for patients, primary care team members, and potentially the health system more broadly. Results suggest that this model of care may be a viable approach to support integrated and guideline adherent management of LBP in primary care settings.

The use of routine spinal X-rays within chiropractic has a contentious history. Elements of the profession advocate for the need for routine spinal X-rays to improve patient management, whereas other chiropractors advocate using spinal X-rays only when endorsed by current imaging guidelines. This review aims to summarise the current evidence for the use of spinal X-ray in chiropractic practice, with consideration of the related risks and benefits. Current evidence supports the use of spinal X-rays only in the diagnosis of trauma and spondyloarthropathy, and in the assessment of progressive spinal structural deformities such as adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. MRI is indicated to diagnose serious pathology such as cancer or infection, and to assess the need for surgical management in radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. Strong evidence demonstrates risks of imaging such as excessive radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, subsequent low-value investigation and treatment procedures, and increased costs. In most cases the potential benefits from routine imaging, including spinal X-rays, do not outweigh the potential harms. The use of spinal X-rays should not be routinely performed in chiropractic practice, and should be guided by clinical guidelines and clinician judgement.

Background Routine seeking of imaging for patients with low back pain is not concordant with the evidence-based recommendation that imaging is rarely of diagnostic value. Inappropriate imaging is a waste of resources and can lead to undesirable downstream effects for individuals and health systems. To develop effective strategies to reduce unwarranted referrals for imaging in primary care, we must understand the drivers for, and barriers to, guideline-adherent practice. We explored clinicians’ views to identify the dominant influences on clinicians as they choose to pursue, or avoid, imaging for their patients with low back pain. Methods We interviewed a purposeful sample of 47 primary care clinicians (14 physiotherapists, 18 chiropractors, 15 physicians) throughout Ontario, Canada, with a guide based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We investigated clinicians’ views about their use of imaging in the management of low back pain. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed transcripts, then identified themes within TDF domains. Results Most clinicians reported that, for most clinical encounters, they adhered to guideline recommendations about imaging. Many clinicians across disciplines expressed the following themes: (1) imaging may result in an incidental finding or otherwise cause harm to patients, and drive up health system costs (TDF domain Beliefs about consequences ); (2) clinicians were confident in their abilities to diagnose, to explain to patients the rationale for not recommending imaging, and to respond to their needs (domains Beliefs about capabilities; Skills) . Many clinicians identified that patients occasionally want the validation that imaging provides (domain S ocial influences). Some clinicians described the value of imaging to corroborate a diagnosis (domain Beliefs about consequences) . Conclusions This study is the first to examine influences on imaging behaviours of a large interprofessional sample of primary care clinicians in Canada. Even among knowledgeable, skilled, confident clinicians who reported mostly adhering to guideline recommendations, there are potential influences on deviating from guideline-adherent care.

Background Evidence-based guidelines for low back pain recommend against routine imaging. Despite these guidelines, many patients still seek imaging. We sought to understand why patients with low back pain may want imaging, using a qualitative approach grounded in the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model (CSSRM), a model that frames how patients’ beliefs and actions are shaped by their past experiences and understanding of an illness. Methods We interviewed 28 patients from a larger study in Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited by family physicians (n = 8), chiropractors (n = 10), and physiotherapists (n = 10), and most (82.1%) had previous episodes of low back pain. Participants completed intake questionnaires and semi-structured interviews that explored their experiences with low back pain care and perspectives on imaging. We analyzed the interview transcripts using the CSSRM. Results The CSSRM domains were represented in patients’ narratives: Stimuli and Illness Representations , Coping Procedures , and Appraisal of Outcomes . Within Stimuli and Representations , patients described perceptions of the causes of their pain, and they associated obtaining an image with gaining a sense of control over their diagnosis. Within Coping Procedures , Cognitive Reappraisal emerged as the construct with the most discourse, reflecting how patients interpreted and reassessed their low back pain over time. Many patients expressed the belief that imaging would resolve uncertainty, validate their experience, and confirm that nothing serious had been overlooked. Patients emphasized that imaging would “show what’s going on,” or help them “feel taken seriously”. Within Appraisal of Outcomes , patients described the self-limiting nature of their LBP; the limited discourse about emotional outcomes was often linked to frustrations and fears. The beliefs expressed in interviews were not consistent with participants’ questionnaire answers from months previously, suggesting that beliefs may shift over time. Conclusions Many patients believed imaging for low back pain was important to gain certainty in diagnosis and reassurance that treatment was appropriate. However, their beliefs about the value of imaging may not be stable over time, as they are influenced by ongoing experiences and reappraisals. To reduce unwarranted imaging, clinicians should consider providing consistent and contextualized messaging that meets the patient’s ongoing illness experience.

Background Musculoskeletal conditions are the primary reason older adults seek general medical care, resulting in older adults as the highest consumers of health care services. While there is high use of chiropractic care by older adults, there is no recent, specific data on why older adults seek chiropractic care and how chiropractors manage conditions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics of older adults seeking chiropractic care, and to report problems diagnosed by chiropractors and the treatment provided to older adults who seek chiropractic care. Methods A secondary data analysis from two, large cross-sectional observational studies conducted in Australia (COAST) and Canada (O-COAST). Patient encounter and diagnoses were classified using the International Classification of Primary Care, 2nd edition (ICPC-2), using the Australian ICPC-2 PLUS general practice terminology and the ICPC-2 PLUS Chiro terminology. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize chiropractor, patient and encounter characteristics. Encounter and patient characteristics were compared between younger (< 65 years old) and older (≥65 years old) adults using χ 2 tests or t-tests, accounting for the clustering of patients and encounters within chiropractors. Results A total of 6781 chiropractor–adult patient encounters were recorded. Of these, 1067 encounters were for persons aged > 65 years (16%), from 897 unique older patients. The most common diagnosis within older adult encounters was a back problem (56%), followed by neck problems (10%). Soft tissue techniques were most frequently used for older patients (85 in every 100 encounters) and in 29 of every 100 encounters, chiropractors recommended exercise to older patients as a part of their treatment. Conclusions From 6781 chiropractor–adult patient encounters across two countries, one in seven adult chiropractic patients were > 65 years. Of these, nearly 60% presented with a back problem, with neck pain and lower limb problems the next most common presentation to chiropractors. Musculoskeletal conditions have a significant burden in terms of disability in older adults and are the most commonly treated conditions in chiropractic practice. Future research should explore the clinical course of back pain in older patients seeking chiropractic care and compare the provision of care to older adults across healthcare professions.