WHAT DO PATIENTS VALUE ABOUT SPINAL MANIPULATION AND HOME EXERCISE FOR BACK-RELATED LEG PAIN? A QUALITATIVE STUDY WITHIN A CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
 
   

What Do Patients Value About Spinal Manipulation and Home
Exercise for Back-related Leg Pain? A Qualitative Study
Within a Controlled Clinical Trial

This section is compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Send all comments or additions to:
    Frankp@chiro.org
 
   

FROM:   Man Ther. 2016 (Dec);   26:   183–191 ~ FULL TEXT

Craig A Schulz, Maria A Hondras, Roni L Evans, Maruti R Gudavalli,
Cynthia R Long, Edward F Owens, David G Wilder and Gert Bronfort

Northwestern Health Sciences University,
Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies,
2501 West 84th Street,
Bloomington, MN 55431, USA.
cschulz@nwhealth.edu


Chiropr Man Therap. 2011 Mar 22;19:8. doi: 10.1186/2045-709X-19-8. Chiropractic and self-care for back-related leg pain: design of a randomized clinical trial. Schulz CA1, Hondras MA, Evans RL, Gudavalli MR, Long CR, Owens EF, Wilder DG, Bronfort G. Author information Abstract   BACKGROUND: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a common variation of low back pain (LBP), with lifetime prevalence estimates as high as 40%. Often disabling, BRLP accounts for greater work loss, recurrences, and higher costs than uncomplicated LBP and more often leads to surgery with a lifetime incidence of 10% for those with severe BRLP, compared to 1-2% for those with LBP.In the US, half of those with back-related conditions seek CAM treatments, the most common of which is chiropractic care. While there is preliminary evidence suggesting chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is beneficial for patients with BRLP, there is insufficient evidence currently available to assess the effectiveness of this care.   METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-site, prospective, parallel group, observer-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT). A total of 192 study patients will be recruited from the Twin Cities, MN (n = 122) and Quad Cities area in Iowa and Illinois (n = 70) to the research clinics at WHCCS and PCCR, respectively.It compares two interventions: chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise program (HEP) to HEP alone (minimal intervention comparison) for patients with subacute or chronic back-related leg pain.   DISCUSSION: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is a costly and often disabling variation of the ubiquitous back pain conditions. As health care costs continue to climb, the search for effective treatments with few side-effects is critical. While SMT is the most commonly sought CAM treatment for LBP sufferers, there is only a small, albeit promising, body of research to support its use for patients with BRLP.This study seeks to fill a critical gap in the LBP literature by performing the first full scale RCT assessing chiropractic SMT for patients with sub-acute or chronic BRLP using important patient-oriented and objective biomechanical outcome measures.   TRIAL REGISTRATION:   ClinicalTrials.gov   NCT00494065

 



From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Spinal conditions are among the leading causes of pain and disability worldwide (Vos et al., 2012). Back-related leg pain (BRLP) or sciatica is a prevalent and costly variation of low back pain that remains understudied (Kent and Keating, 2008; Hill et al., 2011; Kongsted et al., 2012; Konstantinou et al., 2013). While BRLP is commonly treated with prescription medications, injections, or surgery, little evidence supports the routine use of these interventions (Jacobs et al., 2011; Pinto et al., 2012a,b). Further, patients may prefer more conservative options, including spinal manipulation, exercise, or self-care (Sherman et al., 2004; Lurie et al., 2008; Bederman et al., 2010; Lyons et al., 2013), yet research investigating those interventions is limited (Leininger et al., 2011). A recent controlled clinical trial by our group examined whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) added to home exercise with advice (HEA) was advantageous over HEA alone among chronic BRLP sufferers (Bronfort et al., 2014). Patients who received SMT & HEA reported greater improvements in most patient-rated outcomes, including pain and disability, after 12 weeks of care. Medication use, global improvement, and satisfaction remained significantly different between groups after 1 year. Those who received SMT & HEA reported significantly greater satisfaction with their care at weeks 12 and 52, compared to those who received HEA alone.

Satisfaction is a recommended patient-centered outcome for clinical practice and research (Dworkin et al., 2005; Browne et al., 2010), and is also a topic of growing interest for spine care practitioners and patients (Borkan et al., 1995; Skelton et al., 1996; Verbeek et al., 2001, 2004; Evans et al., 2003; Corbett et al., 2007; Slade et al., 2009a,b,c; Snelgrove and Liossi, 2013). While patients' perceptions of their medical encounters can positively influence health outcomes (Fischer et al., 1999), uncertainties surrounding the meaning and measurement of satisfaction (Fenton et al., 2012; Haldeman, 2012; Godil et al., 2013; Leininger et al., 2014; Breen and Breen, 2003) limit its utility as an outcome. Further, efforts to incorporate patient preferences into evidencebased healthcare are undermined when their satisfaction is not considered or understood. (IOM, 2010). Research to understand what treatments patients perceive as worthwhile for treating conditions with greater risk of poor outcomes and higher costs, like sciatica (Hill et al., 2011), may address this knowledge gap.

Treatment options and healthcare costs for spinal conditions have climbed without evidence of substantive improvement in patient outcomes and satisfaction (Martin et al., 2008, 2009; Chou et al., 2009; Delitto et al., 2012). To address these concerns, we conducted a qualitative study alongside the clinical trial (Schulz et al., 2011; Bronfort et al., 2014) to investigate patients' satisfaction with conservative treatments for BRLP. Our research questions were:

  1. What factors do individuals with BRLP consider when determining satisfaction with care?

  2. What characteristics of SMT and home exercise do participants like and dislike?

  3. What aspects of care contribute to participants' perception that the care they received was or was not worthwhile?




Methods

A two-site, controlled clinical trial enrolled 192 individuals with chronic BRLP to receive 12 weeks of SMT & HEA or HEA (Bronfort et al., 2014). Eleven chiropractors delivered SMT and 13 providers (7 chiropractors, 5 exercise therapists and 1 personal trainer) delivered HEA. Institutional Review Boards at the research centers approved the study. Participants provided written consent.

All participants received home exercise advice during four, onehour, individual sessions (Schulz et al., 2011). Information included BRLP causes, encouragement to return to normal activities, and exercise instructions to enhance mobility and trunk endurance. Participants were encouraged to perform home exercises daily. Participants allocated to SMT & HEA attended up to 20 treatments, with the number and frequency of visits left to the discretion of the chiropractor. The primary treatmentwas SMT; soft tissue techniques, mobilization, heat/cold therapy facilitated the manual therapy.

Participants were invited to complete an audio-recorded individual interview at 12-weeks, following collection of self-report outcomes. Ten study coordinators, trained in interviewing best practices to enhance consistency (Newman and Benz, 1998), conducted the 15-min, in-person interviews at their respective institutions. No interviewer provided study interventions. Participants were assured confidentiality to allow them to speak without repercussion (Britten, 1996). A semi-structured interview with open-ended questions (Table 1) provided standardized data collection across sites. The terms ‘chiropractic treatments’ and ‘home exercise program’ differentiated between treatments. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Research staff compared a random sample of transcripts to the audio-recordings to assess accuracy before import into NVivo® v9.2 (QSR International Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia) for data management and analysis.


Table 1.   Interview schedule




We used deductive and inductive content analysis to identify themes and summarize responses to individual questions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Bauer, 2000). An interdisciplinary team comprised of three chiropractors (MM, MH, RE) and a registered nurse (SS), all who had advanced research training, conducted the analysis; no author conducted any interviews. The codebook was based on previous studies by two authors (RE, MM) in similar populations (Evans et al., 2003; Haanstra et al., 2013). MH and MM conducted the analysis, reading and coding interviews independently, thenmeeting every 5e10 interviews to reach consensus. The codebookwas refined iteratively, based on emergent themes and the population-specific context (Bauer, 2000). Methodological decisions also were documented (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). SS, who was not involved in the parent trial, conducted quality assurance checks on a random 10% of coded interviews after sets of 50 interviews. These quality assurance checks did not add new codes but clarified coding nuances between the primary analysts (<5% of coded passages). RE and SS adjudicated areas where consensus was not reached (<1% of coded passages). The frequency of each theme was quantified and representative quotations selected (Bauer, 2000; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Information was organized into a hierarchy of broad themes, which represented concepts in their general sense, and subthemes. We highlighted between-group differences in theme frequency when considered clinically relevant, and identified themes that emerged across different questions in the interviews that provided context for the analysis of participants' responses.



Results

A total of 174 (91%) participants completed interviews (Figure 1). Of the 18 non-participants, three (2 HEA, 1 SMT & HEA) completed the 12-week questionnaires,11 (8 HEA, 3 SMT & HEA) failed to return to the clinic and 4 discontinued participation due to adverse effects (2 HEA, 1 SMT & HEA) or co-morbidities (1 HEA). Table 2 displays demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of participants.


Figure 1.   CONSORT flow
diagram for back-related
leg pain trial.




Table 2.   Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants who completed qualitative interviews.


Table 2A.

Table 2B.



      Satisfaction

When participants considered factors underlying their satisfaction, the most cited themewas interaction with others (n = 120), including study providers and research staff (Table 3).


Table 3.   Number of participants indicating determinants of satisfaction, by parent theme and most frequent subthemes.


Table 3A.

Table 3B.



SMT & HEA participants identified these factors more frequently than HEA participants:

“The professionalism really made a difference with me. Everybody was very professional, very knowledgeable. They do their job, and they showed genuine concern about how I felt.”
(10068 SMT & HEA)

Perceived treatment effect (changes in general condition, BRLP, biomechanical function) was noted by 90 participants. While SMT & HEA participants (n = 52) commented on a general treatment effect, the groups were similar in noting specific change or lack of change in their pain, leg symptoms, and function. Some individuals expressed a clear relationship between satisfaction and treatment effects:

“My pain level or physical health at the end”
(10174 HEA)

Others provided less tangible descriptions:

“The way I was feeling every morning.”
(10203 SMT & HEA).

Participants also mentioned the nature of treatment (n = 66) as a factor in their satisfaction. This included quality of care as noted by SMT & HEA participants (n = 47), and the supervision or instruction during the exercise program mentioned by HEA participants (n = 17). Information was another component of satisfaction (n = 48), particularly for HEA participants (n = 29) as compared to the SMT & HEA group (n = 19):

“I took into account mainly the information that was given to me… specifically the back pain… the origin and how I could reduce it. What kinds of things could I do for the long term? I think that's what probably what interested me the most.”
(10445 HEA)

Other themes taken into account when determining satisfaction included appointment management (n = 32), expectations of care (n = 23), and the overall experience of the research study (n = 16).

      Perceptions of home exercise with advice

Table 4 depicts aspects of the HEA program that participants in both groups liked best and liked least.


Table 4.   Patient preferences with
select aspects of home exercise with
advice and spinal manipulative therapy.





Participants liked the perceived treatment effects of HEA (n = 63), noting the general effects of exercise:

“Just doing them, it certainly was helping”
(10077 HEA);

“what I liked is I felt better”
(13390 HEA)

Participants also liked how HEA impacted biomechanical function (n = 18), pain (n = 8), and physical health (n = 7):

“...I just felt like I was getting my core stronger. I didn't even know I could use my abdominal muscles anymore. But (the therapist) got me doing sit-ups and that helped I think.”
(13600 HEA)

Participants expressed appreciation for the convenience of doing HEA at their own pace (n = 34), the program structure which created a habit of exercise (n = 26), interactions with exercises therapists (n = 14), and information they received (n = 6):

“I think that it kind of gets you going in the morning and it just is good for your back. It's good for you. And if I hadn't come here, I wouldn't have been doing them.”
(10235 HEA)

While 40 participants stated there was nothing about HEA they liked least, many participants (n = 47) expressed a dislike for the self-discipline required by the HEA program:

“It required discipline and I'm not a real disciplined person... I had to work at keeping that as part of my routine.”
(10240 HEA)

Many participants were divided in their valuations of HEA specifics. While some participants liked the exercise handouts, others preferred the information be provided in another format. Some participants stated the exercises offered an appropriate degree of challenge, others thought specific exercises were too hard or too easy. For some, the amount of individualized supervision from the therapists was sufficient, while for others either more or less contact was desired. Participants also differed in whether they liked or disliked the ‘dose’ of HEA or the time commitment involved:

“…the types of exercises that were given and then explaining how to do them, when to do them… that process I think has helped… making the commitment that, yep, that's a daily thing that's going to be done.”
(14539 SMT & HEA)

“I guess trying to find a consistent time to do things. That's not always easy to do because my schedule's not the same from day to day.”
(14087 SMT & HEA)

      Perceptions of chiropractic treatments

Table 4 also depicts participants' likes and dislikes of chiropractic SMT. Participants noted the perceived treatment effects (n = 60) as themost liked aspect of SMT:

“I always felt really good right after being adjusted.”
(13576 SMT & HEA)

Patient-provider interactions were viewed favorably by many participants, which reflected perceived competence, personal attributes, and the approach of providers:

“It's more a personal emotional thing, than a physical thing, it was again that [provider] was so extremely attending to me. He was always, really trying to see the person in me, and work with that, and seek out things. This was what I enjoyed most that I was taken so seriously...”
(13979 SMT & HEA)

Some participants liked the information they received (n = 13), including the cause of their BRLP or treatment options. Others appreciated specific elements of chiropractic treatments (n = 12):

“The flexing of the spine and the stretching of the spine were the two things that really got me loosened up and made me feel like I could stoop over, walk normal, not drag my one leg...”
(10009 SMT & HEA)

Fifty-one participants said there was nothing they liked least about SMT. Eight participants disliked the frequency, time commitment, or elements of appointment management:

“I have to drive here so far and so by the time I got here I was stiff. [The problem] wasn't really the actual adjustments, it was just that getting here was the biggest hassle.”
(SMT & HEA 15047)

One participant expressed dislike having seen different providers due to scheduling concerns:

“I felt that maybe some days that because it wasn't the same individual every time, that, the quality was different. Not that it was any worse, it was just different.”
(10013 SMT & HEA)

      Worthwhile care

Study care was considered worthwhile by 152 (87%) participants, while only three participants said the care was not worthwhile. Eighteen participants replied that some aspects of the care were worthwhile, while other aspects were not (Figure 2). One audio recording did not include a response to the last question. Two of three participants who answered “no” and 13 of the 18 participants who answered “yes/no” to whether the study treatments were worthwhile were from the HEA group.


Figure 2.   Participant perceptions of
whether the care received in the study
was worthwhile (n = 173).





Perceived treatment effect (n = 117) was the most frequent reason participants evaluated the worthwhile nature of study care as they did, particularly for those receiving SMT & HEA. As one participant said:

“It took away my pain. It gave me back a life. When you're in pain so much of the time, it affects your whole... everything. I have a new outlook on life now.”
(13091 SMT & HEA)

Perceived treatment effects also were important for a participant who did not consider care worthwhile:

“Just nothing changed. [My] leg stayed the same, lower back got a little worse.”
(14668 SMT & HEA)

Participants who rated care as worthwhile or partially so valued their interactions with providers and staff (n = 52) and the information provided about their BRLP condition (n = 34):

“... It helped me to exchange and hear a doctor's opinion, a doctor who has a lot of experience with what I amgoing through. So it was so precious to me to get the feedback. And, realistically hear what the outcome could be or what can be done, what cannot be done. It was the exchange that I got.”
(13979 SMT & HEA)

Participants who deemed study care as not worthwhile or only partially so stated preferences to receive SMT or more supervised HEA (n = 2):

“Yeah, I guess to be honest I was hoping to be in the chiropractic group... I've done physical therapy and had about the same results, so I was hoping for the other component.”
(14164 HEA)

SMT & HEA participants who said the care was not worthwhile (n = 4) cited previous experiences with chiropractic or had unmet preferences for muscle work or manipulation to other spinal regions.

      Other notable themes

Body awareness (n = 41) and emotional well-being (n = 28) were mentioned as perceived treatment effects, neither of which were captured in the self-reported outcomes of the main trial. Body awareness was described as an attentiveness to the physical changes experienced in the body or an increased control over the body and its function:

“[I learned] how to handle myself better... how to work my body better so I'm not causing my body more discomfort”
(13619 SMT & HEA)

Emotional well-being expressed a change in mood or attitude:

“It's added more quality to my life... I'm even happier!”
(10258 HEA)

Others noted a change in outlook:

“It gave me back a normal life. When you're in pain so much of the time... your whole outlook is down. It's like I have a new outlook on life now.”
(13091 SMT & HEA)

For some, affirmation of their pain experience provided emotional relief:

“It gives me such confidence to know that I'm not just screwed up in the head (laughter)! I think that sometimes when you just keep hurting and hurting [you need to] just make sure.”
(10151 SMT & HEA)

Many participants (n = 53) mentioned their expectations regarding changes in pain, other symptoms, or co-morbid conditions:

“I really came in here thinking I'll probably be helped, but I won't be helped... to where I'll be pain free.”
(10009 SMT & HEA)

Other participants described pre-treatment expectations that differed from their trial experience:

“... when I first started, I remember going, ‘Well how is this going to make me better?’ cause they're just simple little exercises that you wouldn't think would help – and they do.”
(13211 SMT & HEA)

Participants stated their treatment either was (n = 14) or was not (n = 9) congruent with their beliefs about health, such as exercise adherence or preferences for non-pharmacological approaches:

“I am kind of a holistic person myself. I prefer not to just to take a pill if I have pain, I prefer to try to manage it in other ways.”
(13751 SMT & HEA)

Other participants (n = 21) discussed the random allocation process as tempering their perceptions of study treatment:

“My contacts were rather limited because I was in the exercise only.”
(13739 HEA)

For others, the study was worthwhile because of treatment allocation:

“The... thing that... really helped me with my overall pain and the whole program was the fact that I got on both the physical exercise portion of it plus the chiropractic treatment and at the very beginning that chiropractic treatment I feel helped me considerably. I could see that the exercise was starting to take over and help the whole situation through.”
(10009 SMT & HEA)

Nine participants reflected on a personal transformation, using emotional words like “amazing” and “miracle” to describe the change in their pain. For others, participation changed their views of the chiropractic profession:

“I have to confess that as a nurse... initially chiropractic practice was not always recognized as something that was legitimate. I've learned it can be... this has validated it more. I would really like to know more about chiropractic practice.”
(10240 HEA)

The importance of exercise for managing sciatica also was considered a transformative experience for some:

“... really opened my eyes on how much more activity I could do under the circumstances that I'm in... I didn't have any clue that I could be that active, and that I should be active.”
(13624 SMT & HEA)



Discussion

This qualitative study elicited participants' perceptions of the treatments they received during a clinical trial for BRLP. While other qualitative studies have reported back pain patients' accounts of treatment, (Hopayian and Notley, 2014), few have done so in a population of individuals with BRLP, or evaluated specifically which aspects of treatment patients value (Evans et al., 2003; Ong et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2010; O'Keeffe et al., 2015).

Participants placed high value on their interactions with study providers (chiropractors and exercise therapists) and research staff when determining their satisfaction with care. This theme was most common among those receiving SMT & HEA, and may help explain the advantages observed in this group in terms of satisfaction, pain, and disability in the parent trial (Bronfort et al., 2014). While possibly an artifact of attention bias, this result indicates participants' appreciation of the quality of interactions which might be atypical to what they were accustomed to receiving (Slade et al., 2009a; Gulbrandsen et al., 2010; Macneela et al., 2010; Toye and Barker, 2012; Farin et al., 2013). This aligns with recent quantitative (Hall et al., 2010) and qualitative (O'Keeffe et al., 2015) evidence that suggests positive patienteprovider interactions in rehabilitation settings are associated with reduced pain and disability and higher satisfaction with care. Regardless, our parent trialwas designed to assess the comparative effectiveness of adding SMT to HEA as delivered in practice. The emphasis placed on the patienteprovider interaction highlights the importance of contextual effects of care and should be optimized rather than ignored.

Participants also valued the perceived treatment effect of study interventions. Overall improvement and changes in pain or functional status were common perceived effects that influenced satisfaction with care and whether treatment was judged as worthwhile. While patient-rated pain and disability are routinely used as primary outcomes in back pain research (Deyo et al., 2014), our interviews suggest that other patient-centered outcomes should be considered in future studies. Some participants described subtle changes in their body awareness and emotional well-being. Others cited transformative experiences that changed their perceptions of their health or healthcare. These findings are similar to a large qualitative study of participants from five randomized studies of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies (Hsu et al., 2010), which identified several important domains not typically addressed in low back pain research. These included changes in emotional states, body awareness, relaxation, coping ability, and patient activation. In another qualitative study that explored the characteristics of massage therapy encounters that clients valued (Smith et al., 2009), hands-on intervention facilitated positive therapeutic encounters that influenced trust and psychological comfort, modulating the experience and outcomes perceived from the encounters. Based on these results and our own findings, researchers should consider broadening the range of outcome measures to better reflect patients' experiences with CAM therapies, providing further insight into why patients choose CAM in conjunction with or instead of conventional medical treatments.

Information received about the nature and care of BRLP was important to participants in both groups; this theme was more prevalent among HEA participants. Previous research suggests back pain patients are often dissatisfied with the information received from healthcare providers (McIntosh and Shaw, 2003). Ong et al. (2011) demonstrated the need for patients with sciatica to ‘make sense’ of their BRLP, to understand why they are experiencing such symptoms, how their leg symptoms are related to the spine, and the possible treatments and prognoses. Others have found that patients with back pain assess high quality consultations as those including both diagnosis-based information (e.g., examination results, disease causation) and provider communication validating patient experience (i.e., taking patient concerns seriously, discussing psychosocial issues) (Staiger et al., 2005).

To empower individuals to self-manage BRLP symptoms, all participants in the parent trial received instructions for home exercise and advice about caring for spinal conditions. There is evidence that self-efficacy is a predictor of outcome for musculoskeletal care (Miles et al., 2011), and that low self-efficacy for physical activity is an independent predictor of poor disability outcome among individuals with back pain (Rasmussen-Barr et al., 2012). Further, self-efficacy may predict patients' engagement with exercise (Kroll et al., 2012). Acknowledging the importance participants in our study placed on the interpersonal interaction and information, clinicians would be wise to explore patients' selfefficacy beliefs before recommending exercise, pain management, or self-care strategies (Bair et al., 2009). Further, providers should consider how to engage patients in pain self-management (Matthews et al., 2015). A strong partnership with health professionals may directly impact patients' ability to self-manage their back pain (Fu et al., 2016). This may take the form of providers who express empathy and concern, individualize recommendations, and offer simple information about exercise and managing minor side effects (Carnes et al., 2012; Matthias et al., 2012).

      Strengths and limitations

These qualitative findings provide insights into the parent clinical trial (Bronfort et al., 2014) and are strengthened by its large sample size of 174 interviewees, sampled in two research centers. Only 9% of trial participants did not provide interviews. Another strength was our interdisciplinary team of data analysts who undertook multiple coding rounds to reach 100% consensus, added new themes to the initial codebook, and expanded our interpretations to address broader issues in healthcare beyond manual therapy. While time intensive, this process improved the overall quality of the analysis and trustworthiness of results (Shenton, 2004).

Of interest is the distribution of themes between groups, an important difference given healthcare professionals often advise home exercise without providing hands-on therapy. Specifically, the SMT & HEA participants offered more diverse comments to all research questions compared to HEA participants. This finding may be the result of differences in clinical encounters between groups. It is uncertain whether this constitutes a limitation of the qualitative study, or instead serves as an accurate reflection of additional contextual factors experienced by SMT & HEA participants. We were surprised that no mention was made of side effects as a ‘liked least’ theme, given that 30% of the SMT & HEA group and 42% of the HEA group reported them in the parent trial (Bronfort et al., 2014). It is possible that patients' considered these minor enough to not mention. Indeed, few individuals reported a lack of improvement or worsening of symptoms in the study, leading to an underrepresentation of those with more negative experiences.

Another limitation is the influence of participants' relationships with research staff who served study coordinator roles, many of whom conducted the interviews. Responses may have skewed toward the positive to please researchers. Future studies might engage participants in the analysis to confirm or disconfirm investigators' codes and interpretations.

Finally, participants received study treatments at no monetary cost. The authors suspect this may have influenced the affirmative responses indicating that receiving study care was “worthwhile” (Halpern et al., 2004; Grady, 2005). Participants may have identified other determinants of satisfaction or held a different threshold for whether care was worthwhile had they incurred a cost with treatment.



Conclusion

This qualitative study illustrates that patient satisfaction is rooted in the quality of the patienteprovider relationship, although perceived symptom improvements, relevant clinical information about sciatica and its treatment, and the distinct qualities of those treatments are important drivers of satisfaction for patients who received non-pharmacological treatments for their back-related leg pain. Global measures of satisfaction may not adequately represent the range of patients' experiences and perceptions of spinal manipulative therapy or home exercise. In addition to providing insight to the quantitative results of the parent trial, these findings suggest that tailored interventions to enhance patienteprovider relationships may facilitate compliance and enhance satisfaction with care.


Acknowledgments

This project was supported by funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Health Professions (BHPr), Division of Medicine and Dentistry (DMD) under grant number R18HP07638, Chiropractic and Self-Care For Back-Related Leg Pain. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by the U.S. government, HHS, HRSA, BHPr or the DMD.



References:

  • Bair, M.J., Matthias, M.S., Nyland, K.A., Huffman, M.A., Stubbs, D.L., et al., 2009 Oct.
    Barriers and facilitators to chronic pain self-management: a qualitative study of primary care patients with comorbid musculoskeletal pain and depression.
    Pain Med. 10 (7), 1280–1290.

  • Bauer, M., 2000.
    Classical content analysis: a review.
    In: Bauer, M., Gaskell, G. (Eds.),
    Qualitative Research with Text, Image and Sound a Practical Handbook for Social Research.
    Sage Publications, Inc, London, UK, pp. 131–151.

  • Bederman, S.S., Mahomed, N.N., Kreder, H.J., McIsaac, W.J., Coyte, P.C. 2010 Jan 1.
    In the eye of the beholder: preferences of patients, family physicians, and surgeons for lumbar spinal surgery.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (1), 108–115.

  • Borkan, J., Reis, S., Hermoni, D., Biderman, A., 1995 Apr.
    Talking about the pain: a patient-centered study of low back pain in primary care.
    Soc. Sci. Med. 40 (7), 977–988.

  • Breen, A., Breen, R., 2003 Jan.
    Back Pain and Satisfaction with Chiropractic Treatment:
    What Role Does the Physical Outcome Play?

    The Clinical Journal of Pain 2003 (Jul); 19 (4): 263–268

  • Britten, N., 1996.
    Qualitative interviews in medical research.
    In: Mays, N., Pope, C. (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Health Care.
    BMJ Publishing Group, London, pp. 28–35.

  • Bronfort, G., Hondras, M.A., Schulz, C.A., Evans, R.L., Long, C.R., Grimm, R., 2014 Sep 16.
    Spinal Manipulation and Home Exercise With Advice for Subacute and Chronic
    Back-related Leg Pain: A Trial With Adaptive Allocation

    Ann Intern Med. 2014 (Sep 16); 161 (6): 381—391

  • Browne, K., Roseman, D., Shaller, D., Edgman-Levitan, S., 2010 May.
    Analysis & commentary. Measuring patient experience as a strategy for improving primary care.
    Health Aff. (Millwood) 29 (5), 921–925.

  • Carnes, D., Homer, K.E., Miles, C.L., Pincus, T., Underwood, M., Rahman, A., et al., 2012 May.
    Effective delivery styles and content for self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic literature review.
    Clin. J. Pain 28 (4), 344–354.

  • Chou, R., Loeser, J.D., Owens, D.K., Rosenquist, R.W., Atlas, S.J., Baisden, J., et al., 2009 May 1.
    Interventional Therapies, Surgery, and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Low Back Pain:
    An Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 (May 1); 34 (10): 1066–1077

  • Corbett, M., Foster, N.E., Ong, B.N., 2007 Oct.
    Living with low back pain-stories of hope and despair.
    Soc. Sci. Med. 65 (8), 1584–1594.

  • Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., 2011.
    Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
    Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Delitto, A., George, S.Z., Van Dillen, L.R., Whitman, J.M., et al., 2012 Apr.
    Low back pain.
    J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 42 (4), A1–A57.

  • Deyo, R.A., Dworkin, S.F., Amtmann, D., Andersson, G., et al., 2014 Aug.
    Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain
    Pain Med. 15 (8), 1249-1267.

  • Dworkin, R.H., Turk, D.C., Farrar, J.T., Haythornthwaite, J.A., et al., 2005 Jan.
    Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.
    Pain 113 (1–2), 9–19.

  • Evans, R.L., Maiers, M.J., Bronfort, G., 2003 Oct.
    What do patients think? Results of a mixed methods pilot study assessing sciatica patients' interpretations of satisfaction and improvement.
    J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 26 (8), 502–509.

  • Farin, E., Gramm, L., Schmidt, E., 2013 Jun.
    The patient-physician relationship in patients with chronic low back pain as a predictor of outcomes after rehabilitation.
    J. Behav. Med. 36 (3), 246–258.

  • Fenton, J.J., Jerant, A.F., Bertakis, K.D., Franks, P., 2012 Mar 12.
    The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality.
    Arch. Intern. Med. 172 (5), 405–411.

  • Fischer, D., Stewart, A.L., Bloch, D.A., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., 1999 Jan.
    Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.
    JAMA 282 (12), 1157–1162.

  • Fu, Y., Yu, G., McNichol, E., Marczewski, K., Jose Closs, S., 2016 Jul 1.
    The effects of patienteprofessional partnerships on the self-management and health outcomes for patients with chronic back pain: a quasi-experimental study.
    Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 59, 197–207. Elsevier.

  • Godil, S.S., Parker, S.L., Zuckerman, S.L., Mendenhall, S.K., et al., 2013 Sep.
    Determining the quality and effectiveness of surgical spine care: patient satisfaction is not a valid proxy.
    Spine J. 13 (9), 1006–1012.

  • Grady, C., 2005 Jul.
    Payment of clinical research subjects.
    J. Clin. Invest. 115 (7), 1681–1687.

  • Gulbrandsen, P., Madsen, H.B., Benth, J.S., Laerum, E., 2010 Sep.
    Health care providers communicate less well with patients with chronic low back painea study of encounters at a back pain clinic in Denmark.
    Pain 150 (3), 458–461.

  • Haanstra, T.M., Hanson, L., Evans, R., van Nes, F.A., De Vet, et al., 2013 Sep.
    How do low back pain patients conceptualize their expectations regarding treatment? Content analysis of interviews.
    Eur. Spine J. 22 (9), 1986–1995.

  • Haldeman, S., 2012 Dec.
    Commentary: is patient satisfaction a reasonable outcome measure?
    Spine J. 12 (12), 1138–1139.

  • Hall, A.M., Ferreira, P.H., Maher, C.G., Latimer, J., Ferreira, M.L., 2010 Aug.
    The influence of the therapist-patient relationship on treatment outcome in physical rehabilitation: a systematic review.
    Phys. Ther. 90 (8), 1099–1110.

  • Halpern, S.D., Karlawish, J.H.T., Casarett, D., Berlin, J.A., 2004 Apr 12.
    Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials.
    Arch. Intern. Med. 164 (7), 801–803.

  • Hill, J.C., Konstantinou, K., Egbewale, B.E., Dunn, K.M., Lewis, M., 2011 Dec 1.
    Clinical outcomes among low back pain consulters with referred leg pain in primary care.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (25), 2168–2175.

  • Hopayian, K., Notley, C., 2014 Aug 1.
    A systematic review of low back pain and sciatica patients' expectations and experiences of health care.
    Spine J. 14 (8), 1769–1780.

  • Hsu, C., Bluespruce, J., Sherman, K., Cherkin, D., 2010 Feb.
    Unanticipated benefits of CAM therapies for back pain: an exploration of patient experiences.
    J. Altern. Complement. Med. 16 (2), 157–163.

  • Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2010.
    Value in Health Care: Accounting for Cost, Quality, Safety, Outcomes, and Innovation
    National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC.

  • Jacobs, W.C.H., van Tulder, M., Arts, M., Rubinstein, S.M., et al., 2011 Apr.
    Surgery versus conservative management of sciatica due to a lumbar herniated disc: a systematic review.
    Eur. Spine J. 20 (4), 513–522.

  • Kent, P.M., Keating, J.L., 2008 Feb.
    Can we predict poor recovery from recent-onset nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review.
    Man. Ther. 13 (1), 12–28.

  • Kongsted, A., Kent, P., Albert, H., Jensen, T.S., Manniche, C., 2012 Jan.
    Patients with low back pain differ from those who also have leg pain or signs of nerve root involvement e a cross-sectional study.
    BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 13, 236.

  • Konstantinou, K., Hider, S.L., Jordan, J.L., Lewis, M., Dunn, K.M., 2013 Jul.
    The impact of low back-related leg pain on outcomes as compared with low back pain alone: a systematic review of the literature.
    Clin. J. Pain 29 (7), 644–654.

  • Kroll, T., Kratz, A., Kehn, M., Jensen, M.P., Groah, S., et al., 2012 Aug.
    Perceived exercise self-efficacy as a predictor of exercise behavior in individuals aging with spinal cord injury.
    Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 91 (8), 640–651.

  • Leininger, B., Bronfort, G., Evans, R., Reiter, T., 2011 Feb.
    Spinal manipulation or mobilization for radiculopathy: a systematic review.
    Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 22 (1), 105–125.

  • Leininger, B.D., Evans, R., Bronfort, G., 2014 Oct.
    Exploring Patient Satisfaction: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
    of Spinal Manipulation, Home Exercise, and Medication for Acute and Subacute Neck Pain

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2014 (Sep 5); 37 (8): 593–601

  • Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985.
    Naturalistic Inquiry.
    Sage Publications, Inc, Beverly Hills, CA.

  • Lurie, J.D., Berven, S.H., Gibson-Chambers, J., et al., 2008 Nov 15.
    Patient preferences and expectations for care: determinants in patients with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 (24), 2663–2668.

  • Lyons, K.J., Salsbury, S.A., Hondras, M.A., Jones, M.E., 2013 Jan.
    Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.
    BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 13, 225.

  • Macneela, P., Gibbons, A., McGuire, B., Murphy, A., 2010 Jul.
    “We need to get you focused”: general practitioners' representations of chronic low back pain patients.
    Qual. Health Res. 20 (7), 977–986.

  • Martin, B.I., Deyo, R.A., Mirza, S.K., Turner, J.A., et al., 2008 Feb 13.
    Expenditures and Health Status Among Adults With Back and Neck Problems
    JAMA 2008 (Feb 13); 299 (6): 656–664

  • Martin, B.I., Turner, J.A., Mirza, S.K., Lee, M.J., 2009 Sep 1.
    Trends in Health Care Expenditures, Utilization, and Health Status
    Among US Adults With Spine Problems, 1997-2006

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 (Sep 1); 34 (19): 2077–2084

  • Matthews, J., Hall, A.M., Hernon, M., Murray, A., et al., 2015 Jan.
    A brief report on the development of a theoretically-grounded intervention to promote patient autonomy and self-management of physiotherapy patients: face validity and feasibility of implementation.
    BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 260.

  • Matthias, M.S., Miech, E.J., Myers, L.J., Sargent, C., Bair, M.J., 2012 Aug.
    An expanded view of self-management: patients' perceptions of education and support in an intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain.
    Pain Med. 13 (8), 1018–1028.

  • McIntosh, A., Shaw, C.F.M., 2003 Mar.
    Barriers to patient information provision in primary care: patients' and general practitioners' experiences and expectations of information for low back pain.
    Health Expect. 6 (1), 19–29.

  • Miles, C.L., Pincus, T., Carnes, D., Homer, K.E., et al., 2011 Sep.
    Can we identify how programmes aimed at promoting self-management in musculoskeletal pain work and who benefits? A systematic review of subgroup analysis within RCTs.
    Eur. J. Pain 15 (8), 775. 1–11.

  • Newman, I., Benz, C.R., 1998.
    Qualitative-quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum.
    Southern Illinois University Press.

  • O'Keeffe, M., Cullinane, P., Hurley, J., Leahy, I., et al., 2015 Oct 1.
    What influences patient-therapist interactions in musculoskeletal physical therapy? Qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.
    Phys. Ther. 96 (5), 609–622.

  • Ong, B.N., Konstantinou, K., Corbett, M., Hay, E., 2011 Jul 1.
    Patients' own accounts of sciatica: a qualitative study.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 (15), 1251–1256.

  • Pinto, R.Z., Maher, C.G., Ferreira, M.L., Ferreira, P.H., et al., 2012a Jan.
    Drugs for relief of pain in patients with sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis.
    BMJ. 344, e497.

  • Pinto, R.Z., Maher, C.G., Ferreira, M.L., Hancock, M., et al., 2012b Dec 18.
    Epidural corticosteroid injections in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Ann. Intern. Med. 157 (12), 865–877.

  • Rasmussen-Barr, E., Campello, M., Arvidsson, I., Nilsson-Wikmar, 2012 Jan.
    Factors predicting clinical outcome 12 and 36 months after an exercise intervention for recurrent low-back pain.
    Disabil. Rehabil. 34 (2), 136–144.

  • Schulz CA, Hondras MA, Evans RL, Gudavalli MR, Long CR, Owens EF.
    Chiropractic and Self-care for Back-related Leg Pain:
    Design of a Randomized Clinical Trial

    Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2011 (Mar 22); 19: 8

  • Shenton, A., 2004.
    Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
    Educ. Inf. 22 (2), 63–75.

  • Sherman, K.J., Cherkin, D.C., Connelly, M.T., Erro, J., et al., 2004 Jul 19.
    Complementary and alternative medical therapies for chronic low back pain: what treatments are patients willing to try?
    BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 4, 9.

  • Skelton, A.M., Murphy, E.A., Murphy, R.J., O'Dowd, T.C., 1996 Mar.
    Patients' views of low back pain and its management in general practice.
    Br. J. Gen. Pract. 46 (404), 153–156.

  • Slade, S.C., Molloy, E., Keating, J.L, 2009a Mar.
    “Listen to me, tell me”: a qualitative study of partnership in care for people with non-specific chronic low back pain.
    Clin. Rehabil. 23 (3), 270–280.

  • Slade, S.C., Molloy, E., Keating, J.L., 2009b Jan.
    People with non-specific chronic low back pain who have participated in exercise programs have preferences about exercise: a qualitative study.
    Aust. J. Physiother. 55 (2), 115–121.

  • Slade, S.C., Molloy, E., Keating, J.L, 2009c Jan.
    Stigma experienced by people with nonspecific chronic low back pain: a qualitative study.
    Pain Med. 10 (1), 143–154.

  • Smith, J.M., Sullivan, S.J., Baxter, G.D., 2009 Aug.
    The culture of massage therapy: valued elements and the role of comfort, contact, connection and caring. Complement.
    Ther. Med. 17 (4), 181–189.

  • Snelgrove, S., Liossi, C., 2013 Dec.
    Living with chronic low back pain: a metasynthesis of qualitative research.
    Chronic Illn. 9 (4), 283–301.

  • Staiger, T.O., Jarvik, J.G., Deyo, R.A., Martin, B., Braddock, C.H., 2005 Oct.
    BRIEF REPORT: patient-physician agreement as a predictor of outcomes in patients with back pain.
    J. Gen. Intern. Med. 20 (10), 935–937.

  • Toye, F., Barker, K., 2012 Jan.
    Persistent non-specific low back pain and patients' experience of general practice: a qualitative study.
    Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 13 (1), 72–84.

  • Verbeek, J., van Dijk, F., R€as€anen, K., Piirainen, H., 2001 Apr.
    Consumer satisfaction with occupational health services: should it be measured?
    Occup. Environ. Med. 58 (4), 272–278.

  • Verbeek, J., Sengers, M.-J., Riemens, L., Haafkens, J., 2004 Oct 15.
    Patient expectations of treatment for back pain: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies.
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29 (20), 2309–2318.

  • Vos, T., Flaxman, A.D., Naghavi, M., Lozano, R., et al., 2012 Dec 15.
    Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) for 1160 Sequelae of 289 Diseases and Injuries 1990-2010:
    A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

    Lancet. 2012 (Dec 15); 380 (9859): 2163–2196



  • Return to the LOW BACK PAIN Section

    Return to the CHIROPRACTIC AND SCIATICA Page

    Return to the EXERCISE AND CHIROPRACTIC Page

    Since 8–31–2017

         © 1995–2017 ~ The Chiropractic Resource Organization ~ All Rights Reserved