Abstract
Purpose
The services defined as complementary and alternative medicine/healthcare (CAM) are used to varying degrees according to the nature of the health problem, and musculoskeletal disorders, in particular, often lead to the use of CAM. Chronic pain is often cited as a reason for using CAM, and it is also the cardinal symptom of patients with back pain referred for specialist care. However, previous studies do not consider the heterogeneity of back pain when examining the use of CAM. Thus, this study aimed to explore the associations between CAM use and clinical findings incl. ICD-10 diagnostic codes in such a context.
Methods
In a cross-sectional study, a logistic regression analysis examined associations between CAM use and clinical findings at a public outpatient spine department. Chi-squared test examined the association between self-reported reasons for CAM use and the diagnostic groups.
Results
Of the 432 patients in the study population, 23.8% reported using CAM within 12 months prior to clinical assessment. CAM use was associated with being female and of younger age. Seeking CAM was not associated with clinical findings nor diagnosis, and no statistically significant association between the reasons for seeking CAM and the diagnostic groups was described.
Conclusions
Among patients referred to specialist care for back pain, this study provides no evidence that the spinal condition should be expected to lead to the use of CAM. Only the individual demographic findings, specifically age and gender, were associated with CAM use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Besides differences in access to health services and coverage of associated costs varying between countries because of legislation, organisation, tradition, and practices [1], differences in the offered healthcare exist. Healthcare is provided in two more-or-less separate domains: conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), with varying legal and organisational specifics. Conventional medicine is delivered within an organisational and legal framework of publicly operated, financed, or regulated facilities by licensed healthcare professionals or private businesses run by licensed healthcare providers with particular responsibilities. CAM is provided within a more liberal marketplace with less public regulation and financial coverage, and the services defined as CAM vary between contexts and reflect national medical traditions, cultures, and healthcare policies [2]. According to WHO, “complementary or alternative medicine refers to a broad set of health care practices that are not part of that country’s own tradition or conventional medicine and are not fully integrated into the dominant health-care system” [3]. It follows that CAM is rooted outside modern science, but may serve as a complement to the conventional medicine and thus in some countries included in medical curricula [3]. As such, the definition proves ambiguous and inconsistent, and a healthcare practice may be defined as CAM in one country, while in other countries considered conventional and provided by licensed professionals. Also, a therapy may be conventional or CAM according to the provider’s legal status, irrespective of the nature of the therapy itself, or it may, due to research or health-policy decisions, change status from alternative to conventional medicine.
It follows that the use of CAM varies between nations and cultures. Within developed countries, approximately one-third of the general population use CAM within 12 months [2, 4, 5], with a two-fourfold higher proportion of CAM use among those with diagnosed health issues compared to healthy individuals [2]. Both the nature and severity of the health issues affect the CAM use, and in particular the presence of musculoskeletal disorders leads to more CAM use compared to most other diagnostic groups [2, 6, 7], whereas the importance of severity relates to the context [8]. Patients suffering from back pain (BP) frequently report intolerable pain intensity or chronic pain, which are reasons similarly known for using CAM [9, 10], and studies investigating the importance of sociodemographic and -economic factors report that women, middle-aged individuals, and those with higher socioeconomic status tend to use CAM more frequently [2, 9, 11].
The use of CAM is rising worldwide and the economic impact is increasing [3], and a timely question must be whether certain treatment needs are overlooked in the conventional healthcare relative to specific disorders.
The impact of diverse spinal disorders in terms of pain and physical impairments, which may constitute different reasons for using CAM besides the degree of CAM, is only sparsely investigated. Among patients with low back pain (LBP), Rondoni et al. [12] and Murthy et al. [9] found that a longer duration of pain was associated with a stronger tendency towards the use of CAM, while Sibbritt et al. [8] found that severe pain was associated with a lower tendency to use CAM in favor of the general practitioner. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between specific spinal diagnoses and the use of CAM.
The aims of this study were (1) to investigate CAM use among patients with BP referred to secondary sector care in Denmark, (2) to identify CAM-associated demographics, clinical findings, and ICD-10 diagnoses of spinal disorders, and (3) to identify the rationales for the use of CAM under the assumption that these may vary according to ICD-10 diagnosis.
Materials and methods
Study design
This exploratory single-centre cross-sectional study was based on data from the clinical registry MySpineData (MiRD) (described below), self-reported data on the use of CAM, and clinical data from the Electronic Medical Records (EMR). The reporting adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines [13].
Setting and participants
The study population comprised a consecutive series of patients with BP referred to a public, free-access outpatient medical spine department in Southern Denmark. All patients were referred by general medical practitioners, chiropractors, or other hospital departments and had persistent spinal pain or spine-related functional disability. Patients were 18 years or older. The period of inclusion was from June 2021 to September 2021.
Patients were considered ineligible for participation if they didn’t complete the entrance registry MiRD, didn’t speak/understand Danish, were unable to receive secure digital mail, or were diagnosed outside of the following diagnostic groups: degenerative lumbar/cervical stenosis, lumbar/cervical disc herniation, non-specific lumbar/cervical pain, or spinal pain following trauma/chronic, complex pain (Appendix A in ESM 1: ICD-10 codes contained within the four diagnostic groups).
Data sources and variables
When entering for clinical assessment, patients were invited to fill out the internet-based MiRD registry that collects data on symptoms, overall health, and daily functioning [14]. The following variables were retrieved from the MiRD registry to describe the study population: age, gender, intensity of the pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) [15], functional disability (Oswestry disability index score (ODI) [16] or neck disability index score (NDI-10) [17] for lumbar and cervical spine, respectively), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) item 4 [18], and health-related quality of life (Euro-QoL (EQ VAS) [19]. Furthermore, self-reported data on educational level, other pain-causing conditions, and use of pain medication were retrieved from MiRD. Marital status and ICD-10 diagnostic codes were retrieved from the EMR. Please see Appendix B in ESM 2 for a description of the initial data handling.
This study defined CAM as a treatment given outside the conventional Danish healthcare system by non-licensed healthcare providers. In Denmark, conventional providers relevant to BP are general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and a targeted questionnaire excluding these practitioners and focusing on the current BP was administered to gather information on the use of CAM within 12 months before the clinical assessment (Appendix C in ESM 3). The items and the response options were based on a national background population survey [20], and the type of CAM included addresses four categories of CAM: traditional Asian medical system, alternative medical systems, manual body-based therapies and mind–body therapies [2]. The access to conventional medicine and CAM is equal and without significant capacity challenges.
Considerations of sample size and missing data
The sample size was based on previously reported use of CAM in adult, Danish populations [20, 21], with an expectation of ≥ 30% of secondary sector patients with LBP having used CAM. With a desired precision of 0.05 and correction for anticipated non-response or missing data, the calculated sample size was n = 378.
Data management and statistical analysis
Statistical analysis
Presenting the study population, normally distributed variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, non-parametric data as medians and interquartile ranges, and categorical data as frequencies and proportions. The types, extent, and reasons for CAM use were expressed as frequencies and proportions. Univariate logistic regression analysis estimated the associations between the outcome event (CAM use) and the independent variables. All associations were expressed as Odds Ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Using stepwise backward elimination based on a Likelihood ratio test, we tested all variables in a multivariable regression analysis. Independent variables were tested for intercorrelation, and variables with moderate or strong correlation (R2 > 0.5) were excluded prior to the multivariable analysis. Frequencies and proportions of pre-printed response options for reasons for seeking CAM were reportedThe associations between reasons for seeking CAM and spinal diagnostic ICD-10 codes were examined with Chi-squared test.
Analyses were performed using Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) with an alpha level of 0.05.
Ethics and data control
The Region of Southern Denmark legal department approved the study and use of data from MiRD and EMRs. Danish law exempts questionnaire studies from applications for ethical approval [22]. Upon completing the study-specific questionnaire attached to the MiRD questionnaire, the patients gave written consent to use their data. All data were merged and stored in accordance with the Danish Open Administration Act, the Danish Act on Processing of Personal Data, and the Health Act.
Results
Participants
Complete data were collected on 432 patients, corresponding to 76% of eligible patients within the inclusion period (n = 570) (Fig. 1).
Characteristics stratified by spinal region are presented in Table 1. In total, 65% were diagnosed with non-specific lumbar or cervical pain, 18% with degenerative stenosis, 14% with disc herniation, and 3% with BP following trauma or chronic, complex pain.
Use of CAM and self-reported reasons for seeking CAM
In total, 23.8% (n = 103) of the study population reported use of CAM for their BP within 12 months prior to the clinical assessment. Patients with upper spine symptoms (± extremities) used CAM insignificantly more frequently than those with LBP (29% vs. 23%) (Table 1). The types, extent, and reasons for CAM use are presented in Table 2. Twenty-two participants (24%) reported using therapies not predefined in the questionnaire, however the majority of the participants used more types of CAM, and only 6 participants exclusively used one or more non-predefined CAM types. The majority reported two (25%) or three (22%) reasons for seeking CAM and we concluded that the prelisted response options were exhaustive, as only six patients stated other reasons for seeking CAM, which were thematically covered by the listed options (data not shown).
Patients with nonspecific ICD-10 diagnoses as per the a priori definition (Appendix A in ESM 1) were the most frequent users of CAM with 74%; 12.5% of CAM users were diagnosed with degenerative stenosis; 12.5% diagnosed with disc herniation, and 1% with spinal pain following trauma/chronic, complex pain. The Chi-squared test indicated no statistically significant association between the reasons for seeking CAM and the diagnoses grouped as described.
The association between clinical characteristics and seeking CAM
The proportion of missing data varied between variables (see Table 3), with a maximum of 20% for “Educational level”. Missing values were excluded from analyses on a case-by-case basis.
In univariate analyses, female patients were 1.64 times more likely to seek CAM (OR 1.64 (1.03–2.61)), and each additional year of age was associated with a 3% decrease probability for CAM use (OR 0.97 (0.96–0.98)) (Table 3). With multivariable analysis, gender and age remained significantly associated with the outcome with slightly varying ORs (Table 2). The ODI and NDI scores were not included in the multivariable analysis due to a strong intercorrelation with other variables EQ-VAS, use of pain killers, and pain intensity, and during the stepwise analysis the remaining variables were excluded.
Discussion
The percentage of patients with BP using CAM in this hospital setting (23.8%) is similar to that in the background population in the Region of Southern Denmark (23.5%) [21] and European background populations (25.9%) [2]. While earlier studies associate BP to a higher use of CAM [6], this is not the case in our study. Chiropractic and other manual therapies are often categorized as CAM and rank among the most frequently used treatments for BP [2, 9, 23], whereas in Denmark, provided by licensed health professionals, they are conventional practices covered by national healthcare legislation and with some public reimbursement, which most likely explain the results found in this study. A secondary effect might be that the coverage of such therapies or the free access to general practitioners and hospitals reduces the reduces the incentive to seek CAM not covered by public reimbursement [24]. Thirdly, the global prevalence of CAM used for BP ranges from 6 to 76% (mean 34%) [9], where regions with strong cultural influences and subsequently more varied healthcare offerings are characterized by high CAM prevalences [23]. Due to cultural homogeneity in Denmark, the importance of traditional and cultural influence was not investigated.
This study did not prove statistically significant associations between the diagnostics, the reasons for seeking CAM, and the use of CAM. However, in the univariate analysis, CAM use was significantly associated with non-specific lumbar or cervical pain. For these conditions, specific treatment is unavailable [24], leaving ample room for patients to explore CAM as part of an individual strategy to manage an often chronic and fluctuating condition.
The reported reasons for using CAM align with previous findings [2] and stress a perceived need for managing symptoms more than gaining basic healthcare. This is underlined by 67% of the CAM users partly using CAM to increase general well-being or as a preventative measure.
A surprising 20–30% of the patients used CAM due to disbelief in conventional healthcare or inaccessibility. We speculate if this is associated with the high prevalence of non-specific diagnoses and, as described above, a perceived lack of symptom-relieving treatment. However, no significant association was established. The only variables significantly associated with CAM use in the multivariable analysis were gender and age, which aligns with previous findings [2, 9, 23]. That is, the use of CAM seems more related to individual characteristics than to the underlying health problem.
Strengths and limitations
A strength of our study was the secondary sector study population, allowing us to investigate whether clinically important symptomatology impacted the use of CAM. Also, the specialised hospital setting should ensure a higher degree of uniformity in the use of diagnostics besides the collection of and accessibility to clinical data compared to settings such as private practice.
Methodologically, being a single-centre study, the validity and generalizability of the findings should not be overstated, and multi-centre studies are warranted. However, as touched upon in the Introduction, any scientific investigation of CAM will be particular to the context, affecting the generalizabiliy. Specifically, the Danish classification of chiropractic as conventional healthcare and the culturaFl and legal differences it reflects, limits the comparability of our results to those in other contexts. Future studies with similar research questions could benefit from examining associations with specific therapies regardless of their belonging to conventional medicine or CAM and address the dominant reason for CAM use to optimize the examination of associations. The CAM therapies presented in the questionnaire (Appendix C in ESM 3) were not exhaustive but were based on the most frequently used therapies in similar studies. Based on clinical experience, we would risk a mix-up between professions during answering by including more response options.
Finally, the participants reported CAM use within 12 months. This introduces the risk of recall bias regarding the type of CAM practitioners visited and the reason for consulting.
Conclusions
In this group of secondary sector patients with spinal pain, we found neither association between the use of CAM or reasons for CAM use and the ICD-10 diagnoses of spinal disorders, nor associations between the investigated clinical findings and CAM use. Independent variables significantly associated with more CAM use were the female gender and younger age. Results indicate that having non-specific BP, in particular, but not significantly, led to CAM use, possibly being individual management of often chronic and fluctuating symptoms. Clinicians should recognise this personal choice in a timely manner, but there is no evidence to support active recommendations for CAM.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Baeten RS, Vanhercke B, Coster S (2018) Inequalities in access to healthcare. A study of national policies. European Social Policy Network (ESPN) European Commission, Brussels
Kemppainen LM, Kemppainen TT, Reippainen JA, Salmenniemi ST, Vuolanto PH (2018) Use of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe: Health-related and sociodemographic determinants. Scand J Public Health 46(4):448–455
World Health Organization (2013) WHO traditional medicine strategy: 2014–2023 World Health Organization Geneva
Frass M, Strassl RP, Friehs H, Müllner M, Kundi M, Kaye AD (2012) Use and acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine among the general population and medical personnel: a systematic review. Ochsner J Spring 12(1):45–56
Clarke TC, Black LI, Stussman BJ, Barnes PM, Nahin RL (2015) Trends in the use of complementary health approaches among adults: United States, 2002–2012. Natl Health Stat Report 10(79):1–16
Eardley S, Bishop FL, Prescott P, Cardini F, Brinkhaus B, Santos-Rey K et al (2012) A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU. Forsch Komplement 19(Suppl 2):18–28
Zhang Y, Leach MJ, Hall H, Sundberg T, Ward L, Sibbritt D et al (2015) Differences between male and female consumers of complementary and alternative medicine in a national US population: a secondary analysis of 2012 NIHS data. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2015:413173
Sibbritt D, Lauche R, Sundberg T, Peng W, Moore C, Broom A et al (2016) Severity of back pain may influence choice and order of practitioner consultations across conventional, allied and complementary health care: a cross-sectional study of 1851 mid-age Australian women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17(1):393
Murthy V, Sibbritt DW, Adams J (2015) An integrative review of complementary and alternative medicine use for back pain: a focus on prevalence, reasons for use, influential factors, self-perceived effectiveness, and communication. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 15(8):1870–1883
Chou L, Ranger TA, Peiris W, Cicuttini FM, Urquhart DM, Briggs AM et al (2018) Patients’ perceived needs for allied health, and complementary and alternative medicines for low back pain: a systematic scoping review. Health Expect 21(5):824–847
Sharp D, Lorenc A, Morris R, Feder G, Little P, Hollinghurst S et al (2018) Complementary medicine use, views, and experiences: a national survey in England. BJGP Open 2(4):bjgpopen18X101614
Rodondi PY, Bill AS, Danon N, Dubois J, Pasquier J, Matthey-de-l’Endroit F et al (2019) Primary care patients’ use of conventional and complementary medicine for chronic low back pain. J Pain Res 12:2101–2112
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2008) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349
Kent P, Kongsted A, Jensen TS, Albert HB, Schiøttz-Christensen B, Manniche C (2015) spinedata–a Danish clinical registry of people with chronic back pain. Clin Epidemiol 7:369–380
Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM (2005) Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30(11):1331–1334
Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273
Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14(7):409–415
Waddell G, Newton M, Henderson I, Somerville D, Main CJ (1993) A fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ) and the role of fear-avoidance beliefs in chronic low back pain and disability. Pain 52(2):157–168
EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Health Policy 16(3):199–208
Ekholm O, Jensen H, Davidsen M, Christensen M (2017) Alternativ behandling, Sundheds- og sygelighedsundersøgelsen 2017. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen
Jensen H, Davidsen M, Ekholm O, Christensen A, Kristensen P, Gårn Aea (2018) Hvordan har du det? Trivsel, sundhed og sygdom blandt voksne i region Syddanmark 2017. Region of Southern Denmark, Vejle, p 616
Region of Southern Denmark. The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark. The Region of Southern Denmark
Tsang VHM, Lo PHW, Lam FT, Chung LSW, Tang TY, Lui HM et al (2017) Perception and use of complementary and alternative medicine for low back pain. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 25(3):2309499017739480
Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Öberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M et al (2018) Low back pain: a call for action. Lancet (London, England) 391(10137):2384–2388
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Natalie Hong Siu Chang, Medical Spinal Research Unit, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, for her help with data extraction from the registry MySpineData. RedCap (OPEN, Open Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Region of Southern Denmark) was used for real-time entering of PRO-data concerning the use of CAM.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark. No funds, grants, or other support was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dorthe Schoeler Ziegler: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, validation, writing—original draft, project administration, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved, final approval of the version to be published. Soeren Francis Dyhrberg O’Neill: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—review and editing, project administration, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved, final approval of the version to be published. Kirstine Vest Have; investigation, writing—review and editing, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved, final approval of the version to be published. Sabine Gantzhorn Hildebrand: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—review and editing, project administration, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved, final approval of the version to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent to participate
Upon completion of the study-specific questionnaire attached to the MiRD questionnaire, the patients gave written consent for the use of their data.
Ethical approval
The Region of Southern Denmark legal department approved the study. Danish law exempts questionnaire studies from applications for ethical approval: The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark https://komite.regionsyddanmark.dk/wm428123.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ziegler, D.S., O’Neill, S.F.D., Have, K.V. et al. Is complementary medicine and diagnosis associated among spinal patients in the secondary sector: a cross-sectional study. Eur Spine J 33, 2553–2560 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08314-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08314-6