Association Between the Type of First Healthcare Provider and the Duration of Financial Compensation for Occupational Back Pain
Objective To compare the duration of financial compensation and the occurrence of a second episode of compensation of workers with occupational back pain who first sought three types of healthcare providers. Methods We analyzed data from a cohort of 5511 workers who received compensation from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for back pain in 2005. Multivariable Cox models controlling for relevant covariables were performed to compare the duration of financial compensation for the patients of each of the three types of first healthcare providers. Logistic regression was used to compare the occurrence of a second episode of compensation over the 2-year follow-up period. Results Compared with the workers who first saw a physician (reference), those who first saw a chiropractor experienced shorter first episodes of 100 % wage compensation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20 [1.10–1.31], P value < 0.001), and the workers who first saw a physiotherapist experienced a longer episode of 100 % compensation (adjusted HR = 0.84 [0.71–0.98], P value = 0.028) during the first 149 days of compensation. The odds of having a second episode of financial compensation were higher among the workers who first consulted a physiotherapist (OR = 1.49 [1.02–2.19], P value = 0.040) rather than a physician (reference). Conclusion The type of healthcare provider first visited for back pain is a determinant of the duration of financial compensation during the first 5 months. Chiropractic patients experience the shortest duration of compensation, and physiotherapy patients experience the longest. These differences raise concerns regarding the use of physiotherapists as gatekeepers for the worker’s compensation system. Further investigation is required to understand the between-provider differences.
KeywordsChiropractic Medicine Physiotherapy Back pain Occupational Healthcare provider Compensation duration
Acute low back pain injury program of care
Analysis of variance
Doctor of chiropractic
Institut de Recherche en Santé Sécurité au Travail
Institute for Work and Health
National occupational code
Receiver operating characteristics
Readiness to return to work
Standard international classification 1980
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
The authors thank Ashleigh Burnet and many others from the WSIB for facilitating access to data. M. A. Blanchette is currently supported by a Ph.D. fellowship from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) and previously received Ph.D. Grants from both the Quebec Chiropractic Foundation and the CIHR strategic training program in transdisciplinary research on public health intervention (4P). The data extraction was funded through a grant from the WSIB Research Advisory Committee. Dr. Hogg-Johnson reports grants from Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Research Advisory Council, during the conduct of the study; grants from Ontario Ministry of Labour, outside the submitted work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no other conflict of interest.
- 2.Schmidt CO, Raspe H, Pfingsten M, Hasenbring M, Basler HD, Eich W, et al. Back pain in the German adult population: prevalence, severity, and sociodemographic correlates in a multiregional survey. Spine. 2007;32(18):2005–11. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318133fad8 (Phila Pa 1976).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.WSIB. By the numbers: 2013 WSIB statistical report. Toronto, ON: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. http://www.wsibstatistics.ca. Accessed 3 Aug 2014.
- 7.Lamarche D, Veilleux F, Provencher J, Boucher P. Statistiques sur les affections vertébrales 2005–2008. Québec; QC: Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec2009 Contract No.: ISBN: 978-2-550-56793-6.Google Scholar
- 8.Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles (LATMP). L.R.Q., c. A-3.001 (1985).Google Scholar
- 9.WSIB. Un plus grand choix de professionels de la santé pour les travailleurs blessés ou malades. Bull Polit. 2004;17(1):3.Google Scholar
- 12.Gregory AW, Pentland W. Program of care for acute low back injuries: one-year evaluation report. Maitland Consulting Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
- 14.Turner JA, Franklin G, Fulton-Kehoe D, Sheppard L, Stover B, Wu R, et al. ISSLS prize winner: early predictors of chronic work disability: a prospective, population-based study of workers with back injuries. Spine. 2008;33(25):2809–18. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817df7a7 (Phila Pa 1976).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Blanchette M-A. Première ligne de soins pour les travailleurs atteints de rachialgie occupationnelle: étude du délai de consultation et du premier fournisseur de services de santé [Ph.D. thesis by articles]: Université de Montréal. 2016.Google Scholar
- 19.Wilkins R. PCCF+ version 4G user’s guide: automated geographic coding based on the statistics Canada postal code conversion files. Health Analysis and Measurement Group. Statistics Canada, 64 pp. 2006.Google Scholar
- 20.Statistics Canada. Standard industrial classification—establishments (SIC-E) 1980. Statistics Canada. 2014. http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=53446. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.
- 21.WSIB. Operational policy: responsibilities of the workplace parties in work reintegration. 2011.Google Scholar
- 22.Hébert F, Duguay P, Massicotte P, Levy M. Révision des catégories professionnelles utilisées dans les études de l’IRSST portant sur les indicateurs quinquennaux de lésions professionnelles. Montréal: IRSST1996 Contract No.: Études et recherches/Guide technique R-137.Google Scholar
- 23.Duguay P, Boucher A, Busque M, Prud’homme P, Vergara D. Lésions professionnelles indemnisées au Québec en 2005–2007: profil statistique par industrie-catégorie professionnelle. Études et recherches/Rapport R-749 Montréal: IRSST. 2012;202.Google Scholar
- 26.Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
- 27.Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE. Predictor selection. Regression methods in biostatistics. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 395–429.Google Scholar
- 29.Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski GF, Belin TR, Yu F, et al. A randomized trial of medical care with and without physical therapy and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities for patients with low back pain: 6-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study. Spine. 2002;27(20):2193–204. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000029253.40547.84 (Phila Pa 1976).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Kominski GF, Yu F, Chiang LM. A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study. Spine. 2006;31(6):611–21. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000202559.41193.b2 (Phila Pa 1976; discussion 22).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Petersen T, Larsen K, Nordsteen J, Olsen S, Fournier G, Jacobsen S. The McKenzie method compared with manipulation when used adjunctive to information and advice in low back pain patients presenting with centralization or peripheralization: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2011;36(24):1999–2010. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318201ee8e (Phila Pa 1976).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain. Subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Spine. 1998;23(17):1875–83 (Phila Pa 1976; discussion 84).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Brown A, Angus D, Chen S, Tang Z, Milne S, Pfaff J et al. Costs and outcomes of chiropractic treatment for low back pain (structured abstract). Health Technology Assessment Database 2005.Google Scholar
- 43.Richardson B, Shepstone L, Poland F, Mugford M, Finlayson B, Clemence N. Randomised controlled trial and cost consequences study comparing initial physiotherapy assessment and management with routine practice for selected patients in an accident and emergency department of an acute hospital. Emerg Med J EMJ. 2005;22(2):87–92. doi: 10.1136/emj.2003.012294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Amorin-Woods LG, Beck RW, Parkin-Smith GF, Lougheed J, Bremner AP. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines among three primary contact professions: a best evidence synthesis of the literature for the management of acute and subacute low back pain. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014;58(3):220–37.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 48.Plenet A, Gourmelen J, Chastang JF, Ozguler A, Lanoe JL, Leclerc A. Seeking care for lower back pain in the French population aged from 30 to 69: the results of the 2002–2003 Decennale Sante survey. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2010;53(4):224–31. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2010.03.006 (31–8).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.Nyiendo J, Haas M, Goldberg B, Sexton G. Patient characteristics and physicians’ practice activities for patients with chronic low back pain: a practice-based study of primary care and chiropractic physicians. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24(2):92–100. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2001.112565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar