Who Uses Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment? A Prospective, Observational Study Conducted by DO-Touch.NET
Open Access
- 1 December 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH in Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
- Vol. 119 (12), 802-812
- https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2019.133
Abstract
Context: Information about the characteristics of patients who use osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is limited. Objective: To determine the scope of conditions being managed with OMT and describe the characteristics of patients who receive OMT. Methods: Researchers conducted a longitudinal, observational study on the use and effectiveness of OMT at 17 clinics where clinicians (ie, osteopathic and allopathic physicians and Canadian-trained osteopaths) provided OMT. Adult patients receiving OMT completed questionnaires immediately before, immediately after, and daily for 7 days after treatment. Data collected from patients included demographic information, chief complaint(s) and their severity, and health-related quality of life. Physical examination findings, treatment, and medical diagnosis documentation were extracted from medical records. Census data were used to assess whether patients were representative of the population of the county where the clinic was located. Results: Data were collected from 927 patients at 1924 office visits. A majority of patients were women (690 [75%]), white (854 [96%]), and not Hispanic or Latinx (707 [95%]). The mean (SD) age was 51.9 (15.9) years. When compared with census data, the sample had higher percentages of women, people aged 65 years and older, people who identified as white, people who were high school and college graduates, and people with higher household incomes than that of the county population. The most common chief complaints from patients were pain or discomfort in the lower back (311 [34%]) and neck (277 [30%]), which corresponded with the most common medical diagnoses. Patients reported that OMT, surgery, and medications were the most helpful treatments they had used previously for their chief complaint(s). Before receiving OMT, patients' health-related quality of life was significantly worse (P <=.05) than that of the general US population. Conclusions: Adult patients receiving OMT are being treated primarily for musculoskeletal pain conditions, are not representative of the population of the county where the clinic was located, and have worse health-related quality of life than that of the general population. Information about the characteristics of patients who use OMT is important for defining osteopathic distinctiveness and identifying potential areas for increasing the use of OMT.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Journal of the American Osteopathic AssociationJournal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2021
- Preliminary Findings on the Use of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: Outcomes During the Formation of the Practice-Based Research Network, DO-Touch.NETJournal of Osteopathic Medicine, 2014
- Epidemiology: Spinal manipulation utilizationJournal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 2012
- Health Behaviors and Utilization among Users of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Treatment versus Health PromotionHealth Services Research, 2011
- The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics supportJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 2008
- Use of selected complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments in veterans with cancer or chronic pain: a cross-sectional surveyBMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2006
- Providing Complementary and Alternative Medicine in primary care: the primary care workers’ perspectiveComplementary Therapies in Medicine, 2004
- Prevalence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use: State-Specific Estimates From the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2002