IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/200292101628-1633_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the satisfaction of low back pain patients randomized to receive medical or chiropractic care: Results from the UCLA low-back pain study

Author

Listed:
  • Hertzman-Miller, R.P.
  • Morgenstern, H.
  • Hurwitz, E.L.
  • Yu, F.
  • Adams, A.H.
  • Harber, P.
  • Kominski, G.F.

Abstract

Objectives. This study examined the difference in satisfaction between patients assigned to chiropractic vs medical care for treatment of low back pain in a managed care organization. Methods. Satisfaction scores (on a 10-50 scale) after 4 weeks of follow-up were compared among 672 patients randomized to receive medical or chiropractic care. Results. The mean satisfaction score for chiropractic patients was greater than the score for medical patients (crude difference=5.5; 95% confidence interval=4.5, 6.5). Self-care advice and explanation of treatment predicted satisfaction and reduced the estimated difference between chiropractic and medical patients' satisfaction. Conclusions. Communication of advice and information to patients with low back pain increases their satisfaction with providers and accounts for much of the difference between chiropractic and medical patients' satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Hertzman-Miller, R.P. & Morgenstern, H. & Hurwitz, E.L. & Yu, F. & Adams, A.H. & Harber, P. & Kominski, G.F., 2002. "Comparing the satisfaction of low back pain patients randomized to receive medical or chiropractic care: Results from the UCLA low-back pain study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(10), pages 1628-1633.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:10:1628-1633_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:10:1628-1633_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.