Band 123, Heft 8

Context Previous studies document that both osteopathic physicians and third-party observers identify an approach to the patient that is consistent with the philosophy and tenets of osteopathic medicine, often without investigating whether patients identify or are satisfied with it. Osteopathic physicians and the medical education community understand the distinctiveness of an osteopathic approach to the patient. Understanding the outcomes of an osteopathic approach to patient care includes confirming whether patients experience the tenets of osteopathic medicine in physician visits and, if so, how it relates to their experience of physician empathy and satisfaction with the visit. Objectives The objectives of this study were to assess patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine, physician empathy, and satisfaction with the visit and to compare the results for patients who saw DOs with those who saw MD physicians. Methods More than 2000 patients at four outpatient clinic facilities were surveyed after a clinical visit on 22 prompts regarding their experiences of physician behaviors, physician empathy, and their own satisfaction with the encounter. Adult patients who were treated by an osteopathic or allopathic physician for a nonemergency encounter and who were not pregnant were included in the analysis. Survey results for 1,330 patient–physician encounters were analyzed utilizing linear regression models comparing constructs representing patient experiences of the tenets of osteopathic medicine (Tenets), physician empathy (Physician Empathy), satisfaction (Satisfaction) with the encounter, as well as additional demographic and encounter variables. Results Approximately 23.8 % of patients approached during the study period completed a survey (n=2,793), and among those, 54.7 % of patients who consented to the study and who saw a physician provider (n=1,330/2,431) were included. Significant (p≤0.01), positive associations among patient experiences of Satisfaction with the visit and Physician Empathy were observed among those who saw both DO and MD physicians. Patients experienced the Tenets during encounters with both DO and MD physicians, but linear regression showed that their experience of the Tenets was significantly (p≤0.01) and positively explained by their experience of Physician Empathy (β=0.332, p=0.00, se=0.052) and Satisfaction with the visit (β=0.209, p=0.01, se=0.081) only when the physician was a DO. Conclusions Patients identified physician behaviors consistent with the Tenets and positively associated their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction with the visit regardless of physician training background. Patient experience of the Tenets significantly explained their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction after visits with a DO but not after visits with an MD.

Context Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is utilized by clinicians to diagnose and treat a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including acute and chronic pain, and other medical conditions. Previous studies have examined attitudes of allopathic (MD) residents toward OMT and have implemented residency-based curricula; however, literature is lacking on the attitudes of MD students toward OMT. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine MD students’ familiarity with OMT and to evaluate their interest in an elective osteopathic curriculum. Methods A 15-item online survey was electronically sent to 600 MD students at a large allopathic academic medical center. The survey assessed familiarity with OMT, interest in OMT and in participating in an OMT elective, educational format preference, and interest in pursuing primary care. Educational demographics were also collected. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test were utilized for categorical variables, and nonparametric tests were utilized for the ordinal and continuous variables. Results A total of 313 MD students submitted responses (response rate=52.1 %), of which 296 (49.3 %) responses were complete and utilized for analysis. A total of 92 (31.1 %) students were aware of OMT as a modality in treating musculoskeletal disorders. Among the respondents who indicated “very interested” in learning a new pain treatment modality, the majority: (1) observed OMT in a prior clinical or educational setting (85 [59.9 %], p=0.02); (2) had a friend or family member treated by a DO physician (42 [71.2 %], p=0.01); (3) were pursuing a primary care specialty (43 [60.6 %], p=0.02); or (4) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (47 [62.7 %], p=0.01). Among those interested in developing some OMT competency, the majority: (1) were pursuing a primary care specialty (36 [51.4 %], p=0.01); (2) applied to osteopathic schools (47 [54.0], p=0.002); or (3) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (42 [56.8 %], p=0.001). A total of 230 (82.1 %) students were somewhat or very interested in a 2-week elective course in OMT; among all respondents, hands-on labs were the preferred method for delivery of OMT education (272 [94.1 %]). Conclusions The study found a strong interest in an OMT elective by MD students. These results will inform OMT curriculum development aimed at interested MD students and residents in order to provide them with OMT-specific theoretical and practical knowledge.

Context Osteopathic physicians are trained to treat patients with musculoskeletal symptoms, to treat somatic dysfunction with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), and to avoid unnecessarily prescribing drugs such as opioids. It is also generally believed that osteopathic physicians provide a unique patient-centered approach to medical care that involves effective communication and empathy. Such training and characteristics of osteopathic medical care (OMC) may enhance clinical outcomes among patients with chronic pain. Objectives The objectives of this study were to measure and compare the process and longitudinal outcomes of chronic low back pain (CLBP) treatment provided by osteopathic and allopathic physicians and to identify mediators of the treatment effects of OMC. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing adult participants with CLBP within the Pain Registry for Epidemiological, Clinical, and Interventional Studies and Innovation (PRECISION) from April 2016 through December 2022. Participants having an osteopathic or allopathic physician for at least 1 month prior to registry enrollment were included and followed at quarterly intervals for up to 12 months. Physician communication and physician empathy were measured at registry enrollment. Opioid prescribing and effectiveness and safety outcomes were measured at registry enrollment and for up to 12 months and were analyzed with generalized estimating equations to compare participants treated by osteopathic vs. allopathic physicians. Multiple mediator models, including physician communication, physician empathy, opioid prescribing, and OMT, with covariate adjustments, were utilized to identify mediators of OMC treatment effects. Results A total of 1,079 participants and 4,779 registry encounters were studied. The mean (SD) age of participants at enrollment was 52.9 (13.2) years, 796 (73.8 %) were female, and 167 (15.5 %) reported having an osteopathic physician. The mean physician communication score for osteopathic physicians was 71.2 (95 % CI, 67.6–74.7) vs. 66.2 (95 % CI, 64.8–67.7) for allopathic physicians (p=0.01). The respective mean scores for physician empathy were 41.6 (95 % CI, 39.9–43.2) vs. 38.3 (95 % CI, 37.6–39.1) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in opioid prescribing for low back pain between osteopathic and allopathic physicians. Although participants treated by osteopathic physicians reported less severe nausea and vomiting as adverse events potentially attributable to opioids in a multivariable model, neither result was clinically relevant. OMC was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) over 12 months. Physician empathy was a significant mediator of OMC treatment effects in each of the three outcome domains; however, physician communication, opioid prescribing, and OMT were not mediators. Conclusions The study findings indicate that osteopathic physicians provide a patient-centered approach to CLBP treatment, particularly involving empathy, that yields significant and clinically relevant outcomes pertaining to low back pain intensity, physical function, and HRQOL over 12 months of follow-up.

Context Concussions are the most common type of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can often occur in athletes. These injuries have many deleterious acute symptoms and can lead to the development of postconcussive syndrome (PCS). Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a treatment option that may benefit patients with concussions and PCS. Objectives The objective of this review is to determine whether OMT can improve symptoms associated with concussions and PCS in athletes. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted between August 2021 and March 2022 by two authors (Z.K.L. and K.D.T.) who searched the literature utilizing PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Articles reviewed included case reports, case studies, randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and peer-reviewed journal articles. Search terms included concussion, postconcussive symptoms, osteopathic manipulative medicine, and manipulation. To be included into this study, articles must have included OMT from an osteopathic physician or manipulative techniques by nonosteopathic providers for patients with a concussion or PCS, and the insulting injury must have occurred in an athletic setting. No disagreements occurred between authors about what studies to include. However, we were prepared to come to a unanimous decision through discussion among the authors. A narrative synthesis was performed. No other data analyses were conducted in this study. Results Included in this review were nine articles including randomized control trials, retrospective review, case series, longitudinal, retrospective studies, and case reports. The literature shows the positive effects of OMT and manipulative techniques on symptom resolution after a concussion. However, most of the literature is qualitative rather than quantitative in nature, lacking in randomized control trials. Conclusions There is a scarcity of high-quality studies evaluating the effectiveness of OMT on concussions and PCS. More research is needed to understand the degree of benefit for this treatment option.

Context Intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs when an intimate partner inflicts physical, sexual, and/or emotional assault with coercive control and is a traumatic experience with repercussions that can be exacerbated when a woman is pregnant. While screening for IPV during pregnancy is recommended to occur regardless of risk, less than 50% of pregnant women are screened. Objectives Identifying clinical factors commonly associated with IPV during pregnancy may improve screening rates, thus our primary objective was to examine associations between IPV and maternal comorbidities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Phase 8 spanning 2016 through 2019. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was utilized to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine associations between IPV and diabetes, anxiety, hypertension, depression, asthma, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and thyroid disease. Results More than 40% of women experiencing IPV reported a history of depression or anxiety. The occurrence of IPV was higher among women with depression (AOR 3.48, CI 3.14–3.85), anxiety (AOR 2.98, CI 2.64–3.37), hypertension (AOR 1.21, CI 1.02–1.44), and asthma (AOR 1.37; CI 1.17–1.59) than women without those respective conditions, but not among diagnoses of diabetes, PCOS, or thyroid disorders. Conclusions Our findings show that pregnant individuals reporting having experienced IPV were more likely to report having certain comorbidities compared to those who did not report experiencing IPV. Given the low rates of screening, knowing clinically relevant associations may increase screening sensitivity among clinicians and, in turn, increase the likelihood that individuals experiencing IPV receive supportive care.