Implications and limitations of appropriateness studies for chiropractic.

James M Whedon, Matthew A Davis, Reed B Phillips
Author Information
  1. James M Whedon: Instructor, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The appropriate role for chiropractic in US health care has not been established, but third-party payors and public policy makers must make decisions about the appropriate role for chiropractors in health care systems and for the services that chiropractors provide. Appropriateness studies for chiropractic may inform those decisions. The purpose of this article is to discuss the implications and limitations of appropriateness studies for chiropractic.
DISCUSSION: We reviewed the general context for assessment of the appropriateness and the application of appropriateness studies to chiropractic in particular. We evaluated the implications and limitations for chiropractic of methods of small area analysis and the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. The RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method has been applied to the evaluation of spinal manipulation. Regional variations in chiropractic utilization have yet to be described through small area analysis, but these methods appear to hold some potential for assessing the appropriateness of chiropractic care. Both small area analysis and the RAND-UCLA method offer limited possibilities for the assessment of chiropractic appropriateness.
CONCLUSION: Future assessment of the appropriate role for chiropractic in US health care will raise issues beyond the scope of previous appropriateness studies. Studying the appropriate role for chiropractic will require consideration of the clinical discipline in its entirety, rather than individual consideration of specific interventions. A fair assessment of chiropractic appropriateness will require new evidence and perhaps new research methodologies.

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005 Aug 04;6:43 [PMID: 16080794]
  2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000447 [PMID: 14973958]
  3. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993 Jul-Aug;16(6):419-25 [PMID: 8409791]
  4. Arthritis Rheum. 2007 May 15;57(4):656-65 [PMID: 17471542]
  5. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):288-98 [PMID: 12585826]
  6. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1987 Winter;12(4):741-809 [PMID: 3323295]
  7. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jul 1;129(1):65-6 [PMID: 9653002]
  8. Chiropr Osteopat. 2005 Jul 06;13:9 [PMID: 16000175]
  9. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jul 1;129(1):9-17 [PMID: 9653012]
  10. Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):228-31 [PMID: 15090107]
  11. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Oct;28(8):555-63 [PMID: 16226622]
  12. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Nov-Dec;26(9):593-601 [PMID: 14673408]
  13. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009 Nov-Dec;32(9):749-57 [PMID: 20004802]
  14. N Engl J Med. 1998 Oct 8;339(15):1074-5 [PMID: 9761810]
  15. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(5):651-61 [PMID: 10452420]
  16. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53-63 [PMID: 10300718]
  17. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 24;361(13):1227-30 [PMID: 19741220]
  18. Chiropr Osteopat. 2007 Jan 22;15:2 [PMID: 17241465]
  19. J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):371-86 [PMID: 9395632]
  20. Science. 1973 Dec 14;182(4117):1102-8 [PMID: 4750608]
  21. Health Serv Res. 1995 Oct;30(4):577-91 [PMID: 7591782]
  22. J Altern Complement Med. 2008 May;14(4):361-8 [PMID: 18435599]
  23. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 18;138(4):273-87 [PMID: 12585825]
  24. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91 [PMID: 17909209]
  25. JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):656-64 [PMID: 18270354]
  26. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):731-4 [PMID: 10487995]
  27. Spine J. 2008 Jan-Feb;8(1):213-25 [PMID: 18164469]
  28. Altern Ther Health Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;14(4):40-5 [PMID: 18616068]
  29. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008 Feb;31(2):104-14 [PMID: 18328936]
  30. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2009 Nov-Dec;32(9):740-8 [PMID: 20004801]
  31. Perspect Biol Med. 2003 Winter;46(1):69-79 [PMID: 12582271]
  32. Spine J. 2004 May-Jun;4(3):335-56 [PMID: 15125860]
  33. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007 Jul-Aug;30(6):408-18 [PMID: 17693331]
  34. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Nov-Dec;26(6):1564-74 [PMID: 17978377]
  35. N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 1;344(9):677-8 [PMID: 11228286]
  36. Ann Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;6(4):315-22 [PMID: 18626031]
  37. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Sep;24(7):457-66 [PMID: 11562654]
  38. Arch Fam Med. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):149-54 [PMID: 9075450]
  39. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S199-213 [PMID: 18204393]
  40. Am J Public Health. 2002 Oct;92(10):1628-33 [PMID: 12356612]
  41. N Engl J Med. 1998 Jun 25;338(26):1888-95 [PMID: 9637810]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0chiropracticappropriatenessstudiesappropriaterolecareassessmentareaanalysishealthAppropriatenesslimitationssmallRAND-UCLAwillUSdecisionschiropractorsimplicationsmethodsMethodrequireconsiderationnewOBJECTIVE:establishedthird-partypayorspublicpolicymakersmustmakesystemsservicesprovidemayinformpurposearticlediscussDISCUSSION:reviewedgeneralcontextapplicationparticularevaluatedappliedevaluationspinalmanipulationRegionalvariationsutilizationyetdescribedappearholdpotentialassessingmethodofferlimitedpossibilitiesCONCLUSION:FutureraiseissuesbeyondscopepreviousStudyingclinicaldisciplineentiretyratherindividualspecificinterventionsfairevidenceperhapsresearchmethodologiesImplicationsChiropracticDiseasemanagementSmallUtilization

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)