6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The association between chiropractic integration in an Ontario community health centre and continued prescription opioid use for chronic non-cancer spinal pain: a sequential explanatory mixed methods study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Emerging evidence suggests that access to chiropractic care may reduce the likelihood of initiating an opioid prescription for spinal pain; however, the impact of chiropractic care for patients already prescribed opioids is uncertain. We undertook a sequential explanatory mixed methods study to evaluate the association between initiating chiropractic care and continued opioid use among adult patients attending an Ontario community health centre (CHC) and receiving opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer spinal pain.

          Methods:

          We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 210 patient records between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020. We used generalized estimating equations, adjusted for patient demographics, co-morbidities, visit frequency, and calendar year, to evaluate the association between receipt versus non-receipt of chiropractic services and continued opioid use (e.g., unique opioid fills, number of refills, and dosages) up to one year following the index chiropractic visit. We also completed follow-up interviews with 14 patients and nine general practitioners from the CHC and integrated these data with our quantitative findings.

          Results:

          Over 12-month follow-up, there were lower rates of opioid fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–0.83) and refills (IRR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17–0.42) among chiropractic recipients (n = 49) versus non-recipients (n = 161). Although patients who did and did not receive chiropractic care began the study with the same dose of opioids, recipients were less likely to be prescribed higher-dose opioids (i.e., ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalents daily) compared to non-recipients at three months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04–0.47), six months (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05–0.40), nine months (OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.07–0.57), and 12 months (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08–0.62). Interviews suggested that patient self-efficacy, limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain, stigma regarding use of opioids, and access to chiropractic treatment were important influencing factors.

          Conclusion:

          We found that continued prescription opioid use among patients with chronic non-cancer spinal pain who received chiropractic care was lower than in patients who did not receive chiropractic care. Four themes emerged in our qualitative interviews to help provide a richer understanding of this association. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the effect of chiropractic care on opioid use for chronic spinal pain.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08632-9.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Whatever happened to qualitative description?

              The general view of descriptive research as a lower level form of inquiry has influenced some researchers conducting qualitative research to claim methods they are really not using and not to claim the method they are using: namely, qualitative description. Qualitative descriptive studies have as their goal a comprehensive summary of events in the everyday terms of those events. Researchers conducting qualitative descriptive studies stay close to their data and to the surface of words and events. Qualitative descriptive designs typically are an eclectic but reasonable combination of sampling, and data collection, analysis, and re-presentation techniques. Qualitative descriptive study is the method of choice when straight descriptions of phenomena are desired. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons,
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                emaryp@mcmaster.ca
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                3 November 2022
                3 November 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 1313
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [2 ]Chiropractic Department, D’Youville University, Buffalo, NY USA
                [3 ]Private Practice, 1145 Concession Road, N3H 4L5 Cambridge, ON Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.46078.3d, ISNI 0000 0000 8644 1405, School of Public Health Sciences, , University of Waterloo, ; Waterloo, ON Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.416721.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0742 7355, Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O’Sullivan Research Centre, , St. Joseph’s Healthcare- Hamilton, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [6 ]Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, Yaundé, Cameroon
                [7 ]GRID grid.11956.3a, ISNI 0000 0001 2214 904X, Division of Global Health, , Stellenbosch University, ; Stellenbosch, South Africa
                [8 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Department of Anesthesia, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [9 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [10 ]Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans, Hamilton, ON Canada
                Article
                8632
                10.1186/s12913-022-08632-9
                9635131
                36329472
                0558946f-5949-4243-bb24-22806a0518ea
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 28 May 2022
                : 1 October 2022
                : 5 October 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation
                Award ID: 2020-03
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Health & Social care
                health services research,opioids,community health centres,mixed methods,chiropractic

                Comments

                Comment on this article