Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Predictors for the use of complementary alternative medicine and some other services for low back pain.

From: Use of complementary alternative medicine for low back pain consulting in general practice: a cohort study

Description of CAM service received Frequency n (%) Predictor variable Odds ratio (95% CI) P value
Local heat 476 (34%) Rehabilitation 2.8 (1.2–6.9) 0.002
   Specialist consultation 1.9 (0.8–4.5) 0.16
   Presence of read flags 0.7 (0.2–3.0) 0.63
Massage 417 (31%) Rehabilitation 3.8 (2.5–5.4) <0.0001
   Specialist consultation 2.4 (1.9–3.1) <0.0001
   Chronicity*   
      Recurrent LBP 1.4 (0.9–2.0) 0.42
      Chronic LBP 1.6 (1.1–23) 0.02
Spinal manipulation 352 (26%) Specialist consultation 5.8 (4.3–7.9) <0.0001
   GP offering spinal manipulation 5.8 (3.1–10) <0.0001
   Age group**   
      Age 40–60 0.7 (0.5–1.1) 0.07
      Age > 60 0.3 (0.2–0.5) 0.0009
Electrotherapy 232 (17%) Rehabilitation 2.4 (1.7–3.7) <0.0001
   Specialist consultation 1.9 (1.4–2.5) <0.0001
   Education***   
      10 years 1.1(0.7–1.7) 0.36
      < 10 years 1.6(1.1–2.4) 0.006
Acupuncture 178 (13%) Specialist consultation 3.8 (1.6–5.8) <0.0001
   GP offering acupuncture 3.0 (2.1–4.4) <0.0001
   Chronicity*   
      Recurrent LBP 1.4 (0.8–2.5) 0.63
      Chronic LBP 2.5 (1.4–4.3) <0.0001
Traction 140 (10%) Specialist consultation 2.9 (1.9–4.5) <0.0001
   Rehabilitation 1.6 (1.1–2.7) 0.03
   Chronicity*   
      Recurrent LBP 1.5 (0.8–2.7) 0.79
      Chronic LBP 2.0 (1.1–3.6) 0.01
TENS§ 121 (9%) Specialist consultation 3.1 (2.0–4.9) <0.0001
   Functional capacity < 70 1.9 (1.3–2.9) 0.001
   GP offering TENS3 1.7 (1.1–2.6) 0.002
Homoeopathy 41 (3%) Being female 2.8 (1.3–6.1) 0.009
   Specialist consultation 2.5 (1.2–5.2) 0.012
   Pain on a VAS§§ > 5 2.0 (0.9–4.0) 0.06
  1. * comparison acute LBP
  2. ** comparison age below 40
  3. *** comparison > 10 years education
  4. § Transcutaneus electric nerve stimulation, §§ visual analog scale