Displaying 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page
10
25
50

Article: Differences in function and comorbidities between older adults and nonusers of chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey

Image
Description
This article was co-written by Northwestern Health Sciences University researchers Michele Maiers and Mary L. Forte. It was published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics and was made available online by the NIH/National Library of Medicine in 2019. Citation: 2019 July; 42(6); 450-460.
Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare functional limitations and comorbidity prevalence between older adult users and nonusers of chiropractic and osteopathic (DC/DO) manipulation to inform provider training.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey data. Adults age 65 or older who responded to the survey were included. Descriptive statistics are reported for adults who used DC/DO manipulation (vs nonusers) regarding function, comorbidities, musculoskeletal complaints, and medical services. Weighted percentages were derived using SAS and compared with χ2 tests.

Results: The DC/DO users were more often female, overweight or obese, and of white race than nonusers. More DC/DO users reported arthritis (55.3% vs 47.0%, <0.01) or asthma (15.0% vs 10.0%, P < .01) than nonusers; hypertension (61.9% vs 55.5%, P = .02) and diabetes (20.3% vs 15.7%, P = .02) were more prevalent in nonusers; and other comorbidities were comparable. The DC/DO users reported more joint pain/stiffness (55.7% vs 44.8%), chronic pain (19.8% vs 14.2%), low back pain (27.8% vs 18.4%), low back with leg pain (18.8% vs 10.6%), and neck pain (24.2% vs 13.1%) than nonusers (all P < .01). Functional limitations affected two-thirds overall, but DC/DO users reported more difficulties stooping and bending; other limitations were comparable. One in 9 reported activities of daily living or instrumental activities of daily living limitations; nonusers were more affected. Surgery was more common among DC/DO users (26.1% vs 19.3%, <0.01); emergency room visits were comparable.

Conclusion: Differences existed between older adult manipulation users and nonusers, especially surgical utilization, musculoskeletal complaints, and comorbidities; functional differences were modest. Our findings highlight areas for provider training and awareness regarding comorbidity burden and management needs in older patients who may simultaneously use manipulation and medical care for musculoskeletal complaints.

Article: Perceived value of spinal manipulative therapy and exercise among seniors with chronic neck pain: a mixed methods study

Image
Description
Article co-written by Michele Maiers, Northwestern Health Sciences University's Executive Director of Research and Innovation. the article was published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine in 2014. Citation: J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 1022-1028.
Abstract

Objective: To explore perceptions of spinal manipulative therapy and exercise among adults aged 65 years and older with chronic neck pain.

Design: Mixed methods study embedded within a randomized clinical trial.

Subjects/Patients: Interviews were conducted with 222 of 241 randomized clinical trial participants. They had a mean age of 72. 2 years and they had neck pain of moderate severity and of 6 years mean duration.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the completion of the 12 week intervention phase, during which participants received spinal manipulative therapy and exercise interventions. Interviews explored determinants of satisfaction with care, whether or not therapy was worthwhile, and what was liked and disliked about treatment. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; content analysis was used to identify themes within responses.

Results: Participants placed high value on their relationships with health care team members, supervision, individualized care, and the exercises and information provided as treatment. Change in symptoms did not figure as prominently as social and process-related themes. Perceptions of age, activities, and co-morbidities influenced some seniors’ expectations of treatment results, and comorbidities impacted perceptions of their ability to participate in active care.

Conclusion: Relationship dynamics should be leveraged in clinical encounters to enhance patient satisfaction and perceived value of care.