Attitudes, beliefs, and recommendations for persistent low back pain patients: cross-sectional surveys of students and faculty at a chiropractic college

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: While the use of chiropractic care for persistent low back pain (PLBP) is prevalent, chiropractors' attitudes and beliefs related to PLBP patients are not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes, beliefs and activity/work recommendations of students and faculty at a chiropractic college regarding PLBP patients. METHODS: The Health Care Providers Pain and Impairment Relationship Scale (HC-PAIRS) and clinical vignettes were requested to be completed by chiropractic students and faculty at Parker University in April 2018. Higher HC-PAIRS scores indicate stronger beliefs that PLBP justifies disability and limitation of activities. Activity and work recommendations from clinical vignettes were rated as "adequate", "neutral", or "inadequate", as defined in previous literature. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and logistic regression were used to analyze results. RESULTS: Student and faculty response rates were 63.6% and 25.9%, respectively. Faculty mean HC-PAIRS scores (3.66 [SD:0.88]) were significantly lower than students' (4.41 [SD:0.71]). The percentage of faculty providing "adequate" activity (62.1%) and work (41.0%) recommendations was significantly greater than the percentage of students (activity: 33.9%, work: 21.2%) (p < 0.05). Higher HC-PAIRS scores in students were associated with decreased odds of providing "adequate" activity and work recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Student and faculty attitudes and beliefs, and students' activity/work recommendations were found to be dissimilar to those from similar studies and less congruent with CPG recommendations. Lower HC-PAIRS scores increased the odds of students providing "adequate" activity and work recommendations to patients with PLBP. Results from this study may help guide future research and training opportunities.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.