In May 2009, the English agency National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) produced a guideline you're probably not aware of here in the U.S.: Low Back Pain: Early Management of Persistent Non-Specific Low Back Pain.1 In terms of its recommendations concerning "persistent" low back pain, the English guideline is not unlike the Acute Low Back Problems in Adults guideline produced by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR; now known as the AHRQ) some 15 years earlier.2
Inspired by the NICE guideline, a group of London researchers put the guideline to the test.3 This was not just an academic exercise, according to the authors: "Chronic pain currently affects 7.8 million people in the UK and it has been estimated that back pain alone costs the economy #12.3 billion per year. A survey of adults registered with GPs in the UK found that 38% of respondents were affected by musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. Dealing with MSK problems places a heavy burden on primary care services and resources." (In the U.S., the projected annual cost of back pain exceeds $100 billion.)
The researchers worked with a large medical practice (or "GP surgery," as they call it) in central London with about "11,500 registered patients." While not in keeping with the NICE guidelines allowing nine sessions, "patients could receive up to 6 treatments. Appointment making was integrated into the practice's computer-based reception system, so that patients could book their sessions in the normal way via the practice reception (in person or by telephone). Decisions about patients' treatments were not constrained by any research protocol, but were delegated to the practitioners who were free to treat as they would in everyday practice."
After comparing the pre- and post-questionnaires, the researchers found the following:
Needless to say, there is lots of good news from this study. Patients who had perhaps never seen a doctor of chiropractic were exposed to manipulation, experienced significant benefit, reduced their dependence on drugs, saw other ailments improve and were left wanting more.
The drawbacks are few, but require consideration. In the medical setting, manipulation was seen as a means to primarily reduce pain, increase function and decrease reliance upon pain medication. It is likely that the GPs would have a better appreciation of chiropractic's benefits over time, but that would require more interaction.
Another drawback if chiropractic were included into such a model is the challenges related to practicing in a medical environment. It's not like running your own practice. That said, I have talked to DCs who serve in the military clinics across the country; most of them like it, are well-integrated into the health care system, have developed great working relationships with the other providers, are greatly appreciated for what they bring to the table and are very busy.
Perhaps the worst drawback to this study is the fact that the manipulation was delivered by osteopaths, not doctors of chiropractic. For whatever reason, DCs were not included. But that fact shouldn't be allowed to shut us out here. It would take less than two years to replicate this study in the U.S. In doing so, a model could be developed that would open the door for DCs and medical providers to work together in a shared environment for the benefit of millions of patients.
Admittedly, this is not the usual model for a chiropractic practice. But thus far, little we have done as a profession has moved us from seeing the small percentage of the population we currently see as patients.
With few exceptions (me being one of them), most people see their medical doctor once a year. Most medical doctors have a very poor track record managing musculoskeletal ailments. Having a DC in their clinic, one who is in tune with treatment protocols and intra-clinic communication / documentation, would likely be a win-win.
This model could open the door to the rest of the patient population, because I believe that chiropractic works, even in a medical model.
References
Read more findings on my blog: http://blog.toyourhealth.com/wrblog/. You can also visit me on Facebook.
When sports chiropractors first appeared at the Olympic Games in the 1980s, it was alongside individual athletes who had experienced the benefits of chiropractic care in their training and recovery processes at home. Fast forward to Paris 2024, where chiropractic care was available in the polyclinic for all athletes, and the attitude has now evolved to recognize that “every athlete deserves access to sports chiropractic."
It is estimated that 61% of patients with CTS avoid taking surgical options due to postoperative complications and costly surgical procedures. Chiropractic care offers a comprehensive and effective treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome, addressing the condition from multiple angles. Recent studies also have unveiled a game-changing adjunct to chiropractic treatments for CTS: nerve flossing.
Some doctors thrive in a personality-based clinic and have a loyal following no matter what services or equipment they offer, but for most chiropractic offices who are trying to grow and expand, new equipment purchases help us stay relevant and continue to service our client base in the best, most up-to-date manner possible. So, regarding equipment purchasing: should you lease, get a bank loan, or pay cash?
