Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To dat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online) 2021-07, Vol.121 (7), p.635-642
Hauptverfasser: Cooley, Danielle, Bailey, James, Jermyn, Richard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 642
container_issue 7
container_start_page 635
container_title Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online)
container_volume 121
creator Cooley, Danielle
Bailey, James
Jermyn, Richard
description Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To date, there have been no published prospective studies comparing the cost of osteopathic manipulative treatment to that of standard care for patients with cLBP. To contrast the cost for standard of care treatment (SCT) for cLBP with standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (SCT + OMT). This prospective, observational study was conducted over the course of 4 months with two groups of patients with a diagnosis of cLBP. Once consent was obtained, patients were assigned to the SCT or the SCT + OMT group based on the specialty practice of their physician. At enrollment and after 4 months of treatment, all patients in both groups completed two questionnaires: the 11 point pain intensity numerical scale (PI-NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Cost data was collected from the electronic medical record of each patient enrolled in the study. Chi-square ( ) tests for independence using Yates' correction for continuity were performed to compare the results for each group. There was a total of 146 patients: 71 (48.6%) in the SCT + OMT group and 75 (51.4%) in the SCT group. The results showed no significant differences between the mean total costs for the SCT + OMT ($831.48 ± $553.59) and SCT ($997.90 ± $1,053.22) groups. However, the utilization of interventional therapies (2; 2.8%) and radiology (4; 5.6%) services were significantly less for the SCT + OMT group than the utilization of interventional (31; 41.3%) and radiology (17; 22.7%) therapies were for the SCT group (p
doi_str_mv 10.1515/jom-2020-0238
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2513240956</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3115476330</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-a068e4e8c315174811a7fc390fa5d09bba6436f9e6f1f0e58c9ec800549815ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkM1P3DAQxa0KVBBw7LWyxIVL6NiOE0figlZ8VELqBY4o8nrHXS9JHGyHFf89XpZShDjN0_g3zzOPkB8MTplk8tfK9wUHDgVwob6RfV4DL0RVqp0Peo8cxbgCAC6Z4Jx9J3tCKFnVku2T-5mPiRrfjzq46AfqLc0d9KNOS2dorwc3Tp1O7glpCqhTj0Oi1geaCZd1pGuXltQsgx_yQOfXdK7NQ352wyHZtbqLePRWD8jd5cXt7Lq4-XP1e3Z-U5iSiVRoqBSWqIzIV9WlYkzX1ogGrJYLaOZzXZWisg1WlllAqUyDRgHIslFMohYH5GTrOwb_OGFMbe-iwa7TA_optq-Xl9DIKqPHn9CVn8KQt2sFY7KsKyEgU8WWMsHHGNC2Y3C9Ds8tg3YTfZ7q20307Sb6zP98c53mPS7e6X9BZ-BsC6x1lzAs8G-YnrP4__uXxoyzvJAULzGUknc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3115476330</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain</title><source>De Gruyter Open Access Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cooley, Danielle ; Bailey, James ; Jermyn, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Cooley, Danielle ; Bailey, James ; Jermyn, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To date, there have been no published prospective studies comparing the cost of osteopathic manipulative treatment to that of standard care for patients with cLBP. To contrast the cost for standard of care treatment (SCT) for cLBP with standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (SCT + OMT). This prospective, observational study was conducted over the course of 4 months with two groups of patients with a diagnosis of cLBP. Once consent was obtained, patients were assigned to the SCT or the SCT + OMT group based on the specialty practice of their physician. At enrollment and after 4 months of treatment, all patients in both groups completed two questionnaires: the 11 point pain intensity numerical scale (PI-NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Cost data was collected from the electronic medical record of each patient enrolled in the study. Chi-square ( ) tests for independence using Yates' correction for continuity were performed to compare the results for each group. There was a total of 146 patients: 71 (48.6%) in the SCT + OMT group and 75 (51.4%) in the SCT group. The results showed no significant differences between the mean total costs for the SCT + OMT ($831.48 ± $553.59) and SCT ($997.90 ± $1,053.22) groups. However, the utilization of interventional therapies (2; 2.8%) and radiology (4; 5.6%) services were significantly less for the SCT + OMT group than the utilization of interventional (31; 41.3%) and radiology (17; 22.7%) therapies were for the SCT group (p&lt;0.001). Additionally, the patients in the SCT + OMT group were prescribed fewer opioid medications (15; 21.1) than the SCT (37; 49.3%) patients (p.001). Patients in the SCT group were approximately 14.7 times more likely to have received interventional therapies than patients in the SCT + OMT group. Likewise, the patients in the SCT group were approximately four times more likely to have received radiological services. Paired tests comparing the mean pre- and 4 month self reported pain severity scores on the RMDQ for 68 SCT + OMT patients (9.91 ± 5.88 vs. 6.40 ± 5.24) and 66 SCT patients (11.44 ± 6.10 vs. 8.52 ± 6.14) found highly significant decreases in pain for both group (&lt;0.001). The mean total costs for the SCT and SCT + OMT patients were statistically comparable across 4 months of treatment. SCT + OMT was comparable to SCT alone in reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low back pain; however, there was less utilization of opioid analgesics, physical therapy, interventional therapies, radiologic, and diagnostic services for patients in the SCT + OMT group.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2702-3648</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2702-3648</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/jom-2020-0238</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33856751</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: De Gruyter</publisher><subject>Back pain ; chronic pain ; disability ; low back pain ; Narcotics ; OMT ; opioid ; osteopathic manipulative treatment ; Standard of care</subject><ispartof>Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online), 2021-07, Vol.121 (7), p.635-642</ispartof><rights>2021 Danielle Cooley et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-a068e4e8c315174811a7fc390fa5d09bba6436f9e6f1f0e58c9ec800549815ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-a068e4e8c315174811a7fc390fa5d09bba6436f9e6f1f0e58c9ec800549815ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2020-0238/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jom-2020-0238/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,66901,68685</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33856751$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cooley, Danielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jermyn, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain</title><title>Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online)</title><addtitle>J Osteopath Med</addtitle><description>Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To date, there have been no published prospective studies comparing the cost of osteopathic manipulative treatment to that of standard care for patients with cLBP. To contrast the cost for standard of care treatment (SCT) for cLBP with standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (SCT + OMT). This prospective, observational study was conducted over the course of 4 months with two groups of patients with a diagnosis of cLBP. Once consent was obtained, patients were assigned to the SCT or the SCT + OMT group based on the specialty practice of their physician. At enrollment and after 4 months of treatment, all patients in both groups completed two questionnaires: the 11 point pain intensity numerical scale (PI-NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Cost data was collected from the electronic medical record of each patient enrolled in the study. Chi-square ( ) tests for independence using Yates' correction for continuity were performed to compare the results for each group. There was a total of 146 patients: 71 (48.6%) in the SCT + OMT group and 75 (51.4%) in the SCT group. The results showed no significant differences between the mean total costs for the SCT + OMT ($831.48 ± $553.59) and SCT ($997.90 ± $1,053.22) groups. However, the utilization of interventional therapies (2; 2.8%) and radiology (4; 5.6%) services were significantly less for the SCT + OMT group than the utilization of interventional (31; 41.3%) and radiology (17; 22.7%) therapies were for the SCT group (p&lt;0.001). Additionally, the patients in the SCT + OMT group were prescribed fewer opioid medications (15; 21.1) than the SCT (37; 49.3%) patients (p.001). Patients in the SCT group were approximately 14.7 times more likely to have received interventional therapies than patients in the SCT + OMT group. Likewise, the patients in the SCT group were approximately four times more likely to have received radiological services. Paired tests comparing the mean pre- and 4 month self reported pain severity scores on the RMDQ for 68 SCT + OMT patients (9.91 ± 5.88 vs. 6.40 ± 5.24) and 66 SCT patients (11.44 ± 6.10 vs. 8.52 ± 6.14) found highly significant decreases in pain for both group (&lt;0.001). The mean total costs for the SCT and SCT + OMT patients were statistically comparable across 4 months of treatment. SCT + OMT was comparable to SCT alone in reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low back pain; however, there was less utilization of opioid analgesics, physical therapy, interventional therapies, radiologic, and diagnostic services for patients in the SCT + OMT group.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>chronic pain</subject><subject>disability</subject><subject>low back pain</subject><subject>Narcotics</subject><subject>OMT</subject><subject>opioid</subject><subject>osteopathic manipulative treatment</subject><subject>Standard of care</subject><issn>2702-3648</issn><issn>2702-3648</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkM1P3DAQxa0KVBBw7LWyxIVL6NiOE0figlZ8VELqBY4o8nrHXS9JHGyHFf89XpZShDjN0_g3zzOPkB8MTplk8tfK9wUHDgVwob6RfV4DL0RVqp0Peo8cxbgCAC6Z4Jx9J3tCKFnVku2T-5mPiRrfjzq46AfqLc0d9KNOS2dorwc3Tp1O7glpCqhTj0Oi1geaCZd1pGuXltQsgx_yQOfXdK7NQ352wyHZtbqLePRWD8jd5cXt7Lq4-XP1e3Z-U5iSiVRoqBSWqIzIV9WlYkzX1ogGrJYLaOZzXZWisg1WlllAqUyDRgHIslFMohYH5GTrOwb_OGFMbe-iwa7TA_optq-Xl9DIKqPHn9CVn8KQt2sFY7KsKyEgU8WWMsHHGNC2Y3C9Ds8tg3YTfZ7q20307Sb6zP98c53mPS7e6X9BZ-BsC6x1lzAs8G-YnrP4__uXxoyzvJAULzGUknc</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Cooley, Danielle</creator><creator>Bailey, James</creator><creator>Jermyn, Richard</creator><general>De Gruyter</general><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain</title><author>Cooley, Danielle ; Bailey, James ; Jermyn, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-a068e4e8c315174811a7fc390fa5d09bba6436f9e6f1f0e58c9ec800549815ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>chronic pain</topic><topic>disability</topic><topic>low back pain</topic><topic>Narcotics</topic><topic>OMT</topic><topic>opioid</topic><topic>osteopathic manipulative treatment</topic><topic>Standard of care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cooley, Danielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jermyn, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cooley, Danielle</au><au>Bailey, James</au><au>Jermyn, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online)</jtitle><addtitle>J Osteopath Med</addtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>635</spage><epage>642</epage><pages>635-642</pages><issn>2702-3648</issn><eissn>2702-3648</eissn><abstract>Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the second leading cause of disability in the United States, with significant physical and financial implications. Development of a multifaceted treatment plan that is cost effective and optimizes patients' ability to function on a daily basis is critical. To date, there have been no published prospective studies comparing the cost of osteopathic manipulative treatment to that of standard care for patients with cLBP. To contrast the cost for standard of care treatment (SCT) for cLBP with standard of care plus osteopathic manipulative treatment (SCT + OMT). This prospective, observational study was conducted over the course of 4 months with two groups of patients with a diagnosis of cLBP. Once consent was obtained, patients were assigned to the SCT or the SCT + OMT group based on the specialty practice of their physician. At enrollment and after 4 months of treatment, all patients in both groups completed two questionnaires: the 11 point pain intensity numerical scale (PI-NRS) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Cost data was collected from the electronic medical record of each patient enrolled in the study. Chi-square ( ) tests for independence using Yates' correction for continuity were performed to compare the results for each group. There was a total of 146 patients: 71 (48.6%) in the SCT + OMT group and 75 (51.4%) in the SCT group. The results showed no significant differences between the mean total costs for the SCT + OMT ($831.48 ± $553.59) and SCT ($997.90 ± $1,053.22) groups. However, the utilization of interventional therapies (2; 2.8%) and radiology (4; 5.6%) services were significantly less for the SCT + OMT group than the utilization of interventional (31; 41.3%) and radiology (17; 22.7%) therapies were for the SCT group (p&lt;0.001). Additionally, the patients in the SCT + OMT group were prescribed fewer opioid medications (15; 21.1) than the SCT (37; 49.3%) patients (p.001). Patients in the SCT group were approximately 14.7 times more likely to have received interventional therapies than patients in the SCT + OMT group. Likewise, the patients in the SCT group were approximately four times more likely to have received radiological services. Paired tests comparing the mean pre- and 4 month self reported pain severity scores on the RMDQ for 68 SCT + OMT patients (9.91 ± 5.88 vs. 6.40 ± 5.24) and 66 SCT patients (11.44 ± 6.10 vs. 8.52 ± 6.14) found highly significant decreases in pain for both group (&lt;0.001). The mean total costs for the SCT and SCT + OMT patients were statistically comparable across 4 months of treatment. SCT + OMT was comparable to SCT alone in reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low back pain; however, there was less utilization of opioid analgesics, physical therapy, interventional therapies, radiologic, and diagnostic services for patients in the SCT + OMT group.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>De Gruyter</pub><pmid>33856751</pmid><doi>10.1515/jom-2020-0238</doi><tpages>08</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2702-3648
ispartof Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (Online), 2021-07, Vol.121 (7), p.635-642
issn 2702-3648
2702-3648
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2513240956
source De Gruyter Open Access Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Back pain
chronic pain
disability
low back pain
Narcotics
OMT
opioid
osteopathic manipulative treatment
Standard of care
title Cost comparison of osteopathic manipulative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T05%3A50%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost%20comparison%20of%20osteopathic%20manipulative%20treatment%20for%20patients%20with%20chronic%20low%20back%20pain&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Osteopathic%20Medicine%20(Online)&rft.au=Cooley,%20Danielle&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=635&rft.epage=642&rft.pages=635-642&rft.issn=2702-3648&rft.eissn=2702-3648&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/jom-2020-0238&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3115476330%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3115476330&rft_id=info:pmid/33856751&rfr_iscdi=true