Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

Objectives: The goals of this study were to identify self-reported differences in function, comorbidities, and medical service utilization among adults who reported using chiropractic and/or osteopathic manipulation in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, and to compare these between older and younger adults.

Methods: We conducted a descriptive study of adults aged 18 or older who were included in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey and the Alternative Medicine Questionnaire. We included those who reported using chiropractic and/or osteopathic manipulation in the past 12 months. Responses were analyzed using SAS software. Weighted estimates were reported as percentages of chiropractic/osteopathic users overall and by age group (<65 years vs ≥65 years).

Results: Among the 8.5% of US adults who reported receiving manipulation, 97.6% saw chiropractors. Most adults were under age 65 (83.7%), female (56.6%), and white (85.1%). Except for sitting tolerance, functional limitations were significantly higher among older manipulation users compared with younger manipulation users (all P < .001). Older (vs younger) chiropractic/osteopathic users more often reported functional limitations (65.7% vs 37.2%), had difficulty walking without equipment (14.7% vs 2.8%), found it very difficult or were unable to walk one-quarter mile (15.7% vs 3.8%) or climb 10 steps (11.4% vs 2.5%), and needed help with instrumental activities of daily living (6.9% vs 2.0%). Comorbidities differed by age: cardiovascular events/conditions, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis were more common among older adults, and headaches, neck pain, and depression were more frequent in younger adults. Similar proportions of older and younger adults had emergency room visits (23.0% vs 21.7%); older adults reported more surgeries (26.1% vs 15.4%).

Conclusions: Notable differences exist in functional limitations and comorbidities between older and younger chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation users. This information could inform clinical practice, education, and policy.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of recruiting sciatica patients and to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial. We also aimed to determine the responsiveness of key outcome measures.

Methods: Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n=11), epidural steroid injections (n=11), or self-care education (n=10). No between-group comparisons were planned because of the small sample size.

Results: At week 12 (the end of the treatment phase), the outcome measures indicating the most improvement/change were the Oswestry disability score (mean, 22.9; SD, 19.9; effect size [ES], 1.8), leg pain severity (mean, 2.9; SD, 1.7; ES, 1.7), and if the symptoms were bothersome (mean, 25.2; SD, 16.0; ES, 1.6). Twenty-four patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 22 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. After 52 weeks, the outcome measure showing the most improvement/change was leg pain severity (mean, 2.3; SD, 2.6; ES, 1.35), followed by the Oswestry disability score (mean, 15.6; SD, 20; ES, 1.2) and if symptoms were bothersome (mean, 18.1; SD, 22.6; ES, 1.1). Eighteen patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 15 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement.

Conclusions: The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients and to obtain their compliance for a full-scale randomized clinical.

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.