Di Donato Michael, Gray Shannon, Sheehan Luke R, Buchbinder Rachelle, Iles Ross, Collie Alex
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia.
J Occup Rehabil. 2025 Jun;35(2):345-355. doi: 10.1007/s10926-024-10202-1. Epub 2024 May 18.
To identify the prevalence and frequency of physiotherapy, chiropractic, and/or osteopathy care in Australians with workers' compensation claims for low back pain (LBP).
We included workers with accepted workers' compensation claims longer than 2 weeks from the Australian states of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia. Workers were grouped by whether they attended physiotherapy, chiropractic, and/or osteopathy in the first 2 years of their claim. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to describe differences between groups. Descriptive statistics and negative binomial regression were used to describe differences in the number of attendances in each group.
Most workers had at least one physical therapy attendance during the period of their claim (n = 23,619, 82.0%). Worker state, socioeconomic status, and remoteness were the largest contributing factors to likelihood of physical therapy attendance. Most workers only attended physiotherapy (n = 21,035, 89.1%, median of 13 times). Far fewer only attended chiropractic (n = 528, 2.2%, median of 8 times) or only osteopathy (n = 296, 1.3%, median of 10 times), while 1,750 (7.5%) attended for care with more than one type of physical therapy (median of 31 times).
Most Australian workers with workers' compensation time loss claims for LBP attend physiotherapy at least once during their claims. State of claim is the strongest predictor of which physical therapy profession they attend, possibly due to regional availability. Workers who see a physiotherapist have significantly more attendances. Future research should explore the relationship between these patterns of care and claimant outcomes, including work disability duration.
确定在因腰痛(LBP)提出工伤赔偿申请的澳大利亚人中,接受物理治疗、整脊治疗和/或 osteopathy 治疗的患病率和频率。
我们纳入了来自澳大利亚维多利亚州、昆士兰州、南澳大利亚州和西澳大利亚州的工伤赔偿申请被受理超过2周的工人。根据他们在申请的前2年是否接受物理治疗、整脊治疗和/或 osteopathy 治疗对工人进行分组。使用描述性统计和逻辑回归来描述组间差异。使用描述性统计和负二项回归来描述每组就诊次数的差异。
大多数工人在申请期间至少有一次物理治疗就诊(n = 23,619,82.0%)。工人所在州、社会经济地位和偏远程度是物理治疗就诊可能性的最大影响因素。大多数工人只接受物理治疗(n = 21,035,89.1%,中位数为13次)。仅接受整脊治疗的工人(n = 528,2.2%,中位数为8次)或仅接受 osteopathy 治疗的工人(n = 296,1.3%,中位数为10次)要少得多,而1,750名(7.5%)工人接受了不止一种物理治疗(中位数为31次)。
大多数因LBP提出工伤赔偿时间损失申请的澳大利亚工人在申请期间至少接受一次物理治疗。申请所在州是他们接受哪种物理治疗专业的最强预测因素,这可能是由于地区可及性。接受物理治疗师治疗的工人就诊次数明显更多。未来的研究应探讨这些治疗模式与索赔人结果之间的关系,包括工作残疾持续时间。