Search Results (3)

Pain is a prevalent issue among cancer patients, yet its link with socioeconomic status has not been thoroughly examined. This study investigated chronic pain (lasting ≥3 months) and high-impact pain (chronic pain limiting activities) among cancer survivors based on household income relative to the federal poverty level (FPL), using data from the National Health Interview Survey (2019–2020). Of the 4585 participants with a history of solid cancers, 1649 (36.3%) reported chronic pain and 554 (12.6%) reported high-impact chronic pain. After adjustment, participants with incomes < 200% FPL had significantly higher odds of chronic pain (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25–2.05) and high-impact chronic pain (aOR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.09–2.74) compared to those with incomes ≥ 400% FPL. Opioid use for chronic pain was most prevalent among those with incomes < 200% FPL (28.3%) compared to those with 200–399% (21.3%) and ≥400% (19.0%). Higher-income participants reported greater use of alternative pain management methods such as yoga (50.5%), chiropractic care (44.8%), and physical therapy (44.3%). This study highlights the association between household income and chronic pain outcomes among cancer survivors, emphasizing the necessity for targeted interventions to mitigate healthcare access disparities and improve pain management for all individuals affected by cancer. Full article

Background: In clinical outcome studies, patient input into the factors that drive higher satisfaction with lumbar minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) is rare. The skin incision is often the only visible consequence of surgery that patients can assess. The authors were interested in patients’ opinions about the type of lumbar paramedian minimally invasive spinal (MIS) skin incision employed during MISS and how novel skin incisions could impact patients’ interpretation of the outcome. The authors wanted to compare traditional lumbar stab incisions to three novel lumbar paramedian (MIS) skin incisions to determine if further study is indicated. The primary objective was to examine patient satisfaction and perceptions regarding lumbar paramedian MIS skin incisions. Methods: We reviewed the literature and conducted a patient opinion survey. Responses were solicited from back pain patients from a single chiropractic office. Survey questions regarding novel skin incisions for minimally invasive spine surgery (NSIMISS) were conceptualized. The three novel skin incisions were designed using Langer’s lines to reduce the total number of incisions; improve patient satisfaction; increase ease of surgical approach/fixation; and reduce operative time/radiation exposure. Results: One hundred and six participants were surveyed. When shown traditional lumbar paramedian MIS skin stab incisions, 76% of respondents indicated negative responses, n = 65. The majority of patients chose traditional stab incisions (n = 41) followed by novel larger intersecting incisions (n = 37). The least popular incisions were the novel horizontal (n = 20) and the novel mini oblique (n = 5) incisions. Female patients worried more than male patients about how their incision looked. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p value of 0.0418 via Mann–Whitney U one-tailed test and p value of 0.0836 via Mann–Whitney U two–tailed test). Patients less than or equal to 50 years of age worried more than patients over 51 years of age, which was statistically significant (p value of 0.0104 via Mann–Whitney U one-tailed test and p value of 0.0208 via Mann–Whitney U two-tailed test). Conclusions: Patients do have opinions on the type of lumbar paramedian MIS skin incision used. It appears that younger patients and female patients worry most about how the incision on their back looks after surgery. A larger population of patients across many demographics is needed to validate these findings. Full article

Plain Radiography of the spine (PROTS) is utilized in many forms of healthcare including the chiropractic profession; however, the literature reflects conflicting opinions regarding utilization and value. Despite being an essential part of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), few studies assess Doctors of Chiropractic (DCs) clinical opinions and experience regarding the utilization of (PROTS) in practice. In this study, DCs were surveyed regarding utilization of PROTS in practice. The survey was administered to an estimated 50,000 licensed DCs by email. A total of 4301 surveys were completed, of which 3641 were United States (US) DCs. The Clinician Opinion and Experience on Chiropractic Radiography (COECR) scale was designed to analyze survey responses. This valid and reliable scale demonstrated good internal consistency using confirmatory factor analysis and the Rasch model. Survey responses show that 73.3% of respondents utilize PROTS in practice and 26.7% refer patients out for PROTS. Survey responses show that, among US DCs, 91.9% indicate PROTS has value beyond identification of pathology, 86.7% indicate that PROTS is important regarding biomechanical analysis of the spine, 82.9% indicate that PROTS is vital to practice, 67.4% indicate that PROTS aids in measuring outcomes, 98.6% indicate the opinion that PROTS presents very low to no risk to patients, and 93.0% indicate that sharing clinical findings from PROTS studies with patients is beneficial to clinical outcomes. The results of the study indicated that based on clinical experience, the majority of DCs find PROTS to be vital to practice and valuable beyond the identification of red flags. Full article