Patient evaluations of low back pain care from family physicians and chiropractors.
(67/92)
We compare health maintenance organization enrollees' evaluations of the care they received from family physicians and chiropractors for low back pain. Patients of chiropractors were three times as likely as patients of family physicians to report that they were very satisfied with the care they received for low back pain (66% versus 22%, respectively). Compared with patients of family physicians, patients of chiropractors were much more likely to have been satisfied with the amount of information they were given, to have perceived that their provider was concerned about them, and to have felt that their provider was comfortable and confident dealing with their problem. Although the more positive evaluations of chiropractors may be related to differences in the patient populations served by the two providers or to benefits of spinal manipulation, it is suggested that a potentially more potent force--the therapeutic effect of the patient and provider interaction itself--may explain the observed differences. (+info)
Family physicians' views of chiropractors: hostile or hospitable?
(68/92)
Family physicians in the State of Washington were surveyed about their knowledge and views about chiropractors; 79 per cent (476) responded. Sixty-six per cent indicated discomfort with what they believed chiropractors do while acknowledging their effectiveness for some patients; 25 per cent viewed chiropractors as an excellent source of care for some musculoskeletal problems and only 3 per cent dismissed chiropractors as quacks that patients should avoid; 57 per cent admitted having encouraged patients to see a chiropractor. These views are less negative than those of organized medicine. (+info)
Comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management of low back pain: a feasibility study. Report of a working group.
(69/92)
This is the report of a feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain of mechanical origin. Preparations for the study included an approach to the General Medical Council for guidance about the intended collaboration between medically qualified and heterodox practitioners, detailed communication with local general practitioners, and the provision of a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to cover payments to the chiropractors for work carried out in the course of the study. A total of 238 patients were considered, 197 of whom had initially presented to Northwick Park Hospital and the remaining 41 to the chiropractic clinic in Harrow. Only 6% of the patients presenting to the hospital refused to enter. The single most frequent reason for ineligibility in the hospital patients was freedom from pain at the time of the first hospital visit (23%). A variety of medical contraindications accounted for the exclusion of a further 24% of hospital patients. Patients presenting to the chiropractic group tended to have had shorter current episodes of back pain but to have had more NHS treatment in the past than those presenting to hospital. The commonest reason for exclusion among those presenting to the chiropractic clinic was refusal to enter (34%). Only 5% of the chiropractic patients were ineligible for medical reasons. Overall, 16% of those presenting to hospital and 44% of those presenting to the chiropractors were eligible and willing to enter the randomised treatment phase of the study. Of the 50 patients who entered the treatment phase, all but seven completed treatment and the six weekly self-completed assessments of progress. Patients whose current episodes had lasted less than a month progressed significantly more rapidly than those with longer current episodes. It is likely that sufficient numbers of patients with low back pain are prepared to take part in a formal randomized controlled trial. The organization and working methods for such a trial appear to be feasible. A full scale multicentre trial should aim to include about 2000 patients. (+info)
Managing low back pain--a comparison of the beliefs and behaviors of family physicians and chiropractors.
(70/92)
Random samples of 605 family physicians and 299 chiropractors in Washington were surveyed to determine their beliefs about back pain and how they would respond to three hypothetic patients with back pain. With 79% of the family physicians and 70% of the chiropractors responding, family physicians and chiropractors differed greatly not only in their technical approaches to back pain--such as drug therapy versus spinal manipulation--but also in their underlying beliefs and attitudes. Family physicians think that most back pain is caused by muscle strain, that lumbosacral radiographs are rarely useful, that appropriate therapy does not depend on a precise diagnosis, and that back pain will usually resolve within a few weeks without professional help. Family physicians were more likely than chiropractors to feel frustrated by patients with back pain, less likely to think they can help patients prevent future episodes of back pain, and less confident that their patients are satisfied with their care. Studies are needed to determine whether the different perspectives of family physicians and chiropractors are associated with differences in the costs and outcomes of care. (+info)
Where we stand.
(71/92)
To serve the interests of members and to function in the public interest, the California Medical Association must set policies and take positions on current issues affecting the health care of Californians. These policies then guide the activities of the Association in fulfilling its leadership role and its responsibility to the public.Delegates, elected by the membership of CMA's component medical societies, meet annually to deliberate and determine the policies and courses of action for the Association. Between meetings of these Delegates, the CMA Councilors, elected by their district membership, implement the directives of the Delegates and set interim policies. By this democratic process, the membership governs the CMA. Association members must be informed if they are to participate effectively in the affairs of their medical organizations. To disseminate better understanding of CMA's activities, position papers on current issues have been developed. They are based on House of Delegates resolutions and Council actions. Entitled "Where We Stand on Medical and Health Issues," these papers represent the current policy positions of CMA. Each paper is annotated to give the reference source of the policy actions. As with any organization, CMA policies are subject to timely revision. When policies are amended or new policies are adopted, new papers will be developed. (+info)
Chiropractic college libraries in the United States and Canada, 1981-1982.
(72/92)
Libraries in thirteen chiropractic colleges in the United States and Canada were surveyed in 1981/82. Data include operating expenditures, library resources, staffing levels and salaries, and size of physical plant. The survey identified wide differences among the population in all variables measured. (+info)