Integrative Health and Wellbeing Research Program Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota, Mayo Memorial Building C504, 420 Delaware Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55414, USA.
Department of Public Health, North Dakota State University, 640R Aldevron Tower, 1455 14th Ave N, Fargo, ND, 58102, USA.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 May 27;25(1):414. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-07524-9.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing treatment effectiveness; however, they have been criticized for generalizability issues such as how well trial participants represent those who receive the treatments in clinical practice. We assessed the representativeness of participants from eight RCTs for chronic spine pain in the U.S., which were used for an individual participant data meta-analysis on the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation for spine pain. In these clinical trials, spinal manipulation was performed by chiropractors.
We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of RCT data to compare trial participants' socio-demographic characteristics, clinical features, and health outcomes to a representative sample of (a) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain and (b) U.S. adults with chronic spine pain receiving chiropractic care, using secondary data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We assessed differences between trial and U.S. spine populations using independent t-tests for means and z-tests for proportions, accounting for the complex multi-stage survey design of the NHIS and MEPS.
We found the clinical trials had an under-representation of individuals from health disparity populations with lower percentages of racial and ethnic minority groups (Black/African American 7% lower, Hispanic 8% lower), less educated (No high school degree 19% lower, high school degree 11% lower), and unemployed adults (25% lower) with worse health outcomes (physical health scores 2.5 lower and mental health scores 5.3 lower using the SF-12/36) relative to the U.S. population with spine pain. While the odds of chiropractic use in the U.S. are lower for individuals from health disparity populations, the trials also under-represented these populations relative to U.S. adults with chronic spine pain who visit a chiropractor.
Health disparity populations are not well represented in spine pain clinical trials. Embracing key community-based approaches, which have shown promise for increasing participation of underserved communities, is needed.
随机临床试验(RCTs)是评估治疗效果的金标准;然而,它们因试验参与者对临床实践中接受治疗的人群的代表性等问题而受到批评。我们评估了美国 8 项慢性脊柱疼痛 RCT 参与者的代表性,这些参与者的数据用于脊柱推拿治疗脊柱疼痛的成本效益的个体参与者数据荟萃分析。在这些临床试验中,脊柱推拿由脊椎按摩师进行。
我们对 RCT 数据进行了回顾性二次分析,以比较试验参与者的社会人口统计学特征、临床特征和健康结果与(a)美国慢性脊柱疼痛患者和(b)接受脊椎按摩治疗的美国慢性脊柱疼痛患者的代表性样本,使用国家健康访谈调查(NHIS)和医疗支出面板调查(MEPS)的二级数据。我们使用 NHIS 和 MEPS 的复杂多阶段调查设计,对试验和美国脊柱人群之间的差异进行了独立 t 检验和比例 z 检验。
我们发现,临床试验中代表性不足的人群来自健康差异人群,其中少数民族群体(黑人/非裔美国人低 7%,西班牙裔低 8%)、受教育程度较低(未完成高中学业者低 19%,高中学历者低 11%)和失业成年人(低 25%)的比例较低,健康状况较差(SF-12/36 的身体健康评分低 2.5 分,心理健康评分低 5.3 分)与患有脊柱疼痛的美国人群相比。尽管健康差异人群在美国接受脊椎按摩治疗的可能性较低,但与去看脊椎按摩师的美国慢性脊柱疼痛患者相比,这些人群在临床试验中也代表性不足。
健康差异人群在脊柱疼痛临床试验中代表性不足。需要采用一些以社区为基础的关键方法,这些方法已显示出增加服务不足社区参与的潜力。