A path analysis of the effects of the doctor-patient encounter and expectancy in an open-label randomized trial of spinal manipulation for the care of low back pain

Mitchell Haas, Darcy Vavrek, Moni B Neradilek, Nayak Polissar, Mitchell Haas, Darcy Vavrek, Moni B Neradilek, Nayak Polissar

Abstract

Background: The doctor-patient encounter (DPE) and associated patient expectations are potential confounders in open-label randomized trials of treatment efficacy. It is therefore important to evaluate the effects of the DPE on study outcomes.

Methods: Four hundred participants with chronic low back pain (LBP) were randomized to four dose groups: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions of spinal manipulation from a chiropractor. Participants were treated three times per week for six weeks. They received light massage control at visits when manipulation was not scheduled. Treating chiropractors were instructed to have equal enthusiasm for both interventions. A path analysis was conducted to determine the effects of dose, patient expectations of treatment success, and DPE on LBP intensity (100-point scale) at the end of care (6 weeks) and primary endpoint (12 weeks). Direct, indirect, and total standardized effects (βtotal) were computed. Expectations and DPE were evaluated on Likert scales. The DPE was assessed as patient-rated perception of chiropractor enthusiasm, confidence, comfort with care, and time spent.

Results: The DPE was successfully balanced across groups, as were baseline expectations. The principal finding was that the magnitude of the effects of DPE on LBP at 6 and 12 weeks (|β|total = 0.22 and 0.15, p < .05) were comparable to the effects of dose of manipulation at those times (|β|total = 0.11 and 0.12, p < .05). In addition, baseline expectations had no notable effect on follow-up LBP. Subsequent expectations were affected by LBP, DPE, and dose (p < .05).

Conclusions: The DPE can have a relatively important effect on outcomes in open-label randomized trials of treatment efficacy. Therefore, attempts should be made to balance the DPE across treatment groups and report degree of success in study publications. We balanced the DPE across groups with minimal training of treatment providers.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00376350.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Path analysis diagram. Standardized path coefficients are presented. The absolute magnitude indicates the strength of the relationship between variables and the arrow points to the presumed direction of influence. Solid arrows indicate statistical significance (p < .05) and the width of solid arrows indicates the magnitude of the coefficient. Color of the arrow indicates variable of origin; green = pain, red = DPE, blue = expectations, black = treatment dose.

References

    1. Moerman DE. In: The Science of the Placebo: Toward an Intedisciplinary Research Agenda. Guess HA, Kleinman A, Kusek JW, Engel LW, editor. London: BMJ Books; 2002. Explanatory mechanisms for placebo effects: cultural influences and the meaning response; pp. 77–107.
    1. Kirsch I, Lynn SJ. Automaticity in clinical psychology. Am Psychol. 1999;54:504–515.
    1. Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations and health outcomes. CMAJ. 2001;165:174–179.
    1. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Thomas H. The role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the delivery of health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(3):1–96.
    1. Myers SS, Phillips RS, Davis RB, Cherkin DC, Legedza A, Kaptchuk TJ, Hrbek A, Buring JE, Post D, Connelly MT, Eisenberg DM. Patient expectations as predictors of outcome in patients with acute low back pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:148–153. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0460-5.
    1. Schneider MJ, Brach J, Irrgang JJ, Abbott KV, Wisniewski SR, Delitto A. Mechanical vs manual manipulation for low back pain: an observational cohort study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33:193–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.01.010.
    1. Kalauokalani D, Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Koepsell TD, Deyo RA. Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain: patient expectations and treatment effects. Spine. 2001;26:1418–1424. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200107010-00005.
    1. Smeets RJ, Beelen S, Goossens ME, Schouten EG, Knottnerus JA, Vlaeyen JW. Treatment expectancy and credibility are associated with the outcome of both physical and cognitive-behavioral treatment in chronic low back pain. Clin J Pain. 2008;24:305–315. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e318164aa75.
    1. Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Avins AL, Erro JH, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Delaney K, Hawkes R, Hamilton L, Pressman A, Khalsa PS, Deyo RA. A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:858–866. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.65.
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.
    1. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W.
    1. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van TM. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 2009;34:1929–1941. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f.
    1. Haas M, Spegman A, Peterson DH, Aickin M, Vavrek D. Dose–response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Spine J. 2010;10:117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2009.09.002.
    1. Haas M, Aickin M, Vavrek D. A path analysis of expectancy and patient-provider encounter in an open-label randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010;33:5–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.11.007.
    1. Haas M, Vavrek D, Peterson D, Polissar NL, Neradilek MB. Dose–response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine J. in press.
    1. Begg CB, Iglewicz B. A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36:81–90. doi: 10.2307/2530497.
    1. Aickin M. Randomization, balance, and the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation methods. J Statist Plan Inference. 2001;94:97–119. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3758(00)00228-7.
    1. Gatterman MI, Panzer DM. In: Chiropractic Management of Spine Related Disorders. Gatterman MI, editor. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1990. Disorders of the lumbar spine; pp. 129–175.
    1. Anderson JAD. Problems of classification of low-back pain. Rheumatol Rehabil. 1977;16:34–36. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/16.1.34.
    1. DiFabio RP, Mackey G, Holte JB. Physical therapy outcomes for patients receiving workers’ compensation following treatment for herniated lumbar disc and mechanical low back pain syndrome. JOSPT. 1996;23(3):180–187. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1996.23.3.180.
    1. Shekelle P, Adams A, Chassin M, Hurwitz E, Brook R. Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:590–598. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-7-590.
    1. Belanger A. In: Evidence-Based Guide to Therapeutic Physical Agents. Belanger A, editor. Philadephia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. Ultrasound; pp. 223–261.
    1. Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect in alternative medicine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance? Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:817–825. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00011.
    1. Peterson DH, Bergmann TF. Chiropractic technique: principles and procedures. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
    1. Nicholson GG, Clendaniel RA. In: Physical Therapy. Scully RM, Barnes MR, editor. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company; 1989. Manual Techniques; pp. 926–985.
    1. Furlan AD, Brosseau L, Imamura M, Irvin E. Massage for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine. 2002;27:1896–1910. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200209010-00017.
    1. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Sherman KJ, Hart G, Street JH, Hrbek A, Davis RB, Cramer E, Milliman B, Booker J, Mootz R, Barassi J, Kabin JR, Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM. Characteristics of licensed acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage thrapists and naturapthic physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15:463–472.
    1. Underwood MR, Barnett AG, Vickers MR. Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine. 1999;24:1104–1112. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199906010-00010.
    1. Users Manual: low Back Pain TyPEsm Specification. Version 1. Bloomington, MN: Quality Quest; 1989.
    1. Cherkin D, Deyo RA, Berg AO. Evaluation of a physician education intervention to improve primary care for low-back pain: II. Impact on patients. Spine. 1991;16:1173–1178. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199110000-00008.
    1. Cherkin DC, MacCornack FA. Patient evaluations of low back pain care from family physicians and chiropractors. West J Med. 1989;150:351–355.
    1. Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, Maes HH. Mx: Statistical Modeling. VCU Box 900126, Richmond, VA 23298: Department of Psychiatry; 2003.
    1. Kline RB. Priniciples and Practice of Structural Equaton Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94:149–158. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9.
    1. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–291. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004.
    1. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von KM, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008;33:90–94. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit