ArticleJournal of complementary & integrative medicine2023
A cross-sectional survey exploring clinician perceptions of a novel Medicaid back pain policy.
Article in Journal of complementary & integrative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pain disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic low back pain: The differential role of psychological distress.The journal of pain · 2025Article
- Outcomes After a Statewide Policy to Improve Evidence-Based Treatment of Back Pain Among Medicaid Enrollees in Oregon.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Disparities in access but not outcomes: Medicaid versus non-Medicaid patients in multidisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation.Disability and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- "It Has Improved My Practice to Be Able to Offer Alternative Treatments": A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Oregon Medicaid Back Pain Providers.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOregon Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan, or OHP) implemented an innovative policy in 2016 that increased coverage of evidence-based non-pharmacologic therapies (NPT, including physical therapy, massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture) while restricting opioids, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of clinicians who see back pain patients and can prescribe pharmacologic therapies and/or refer to NPTs and clinicians who directly provide NPT therapies affected by the policy.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was administered to Oregon prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians between December 2019 and February 2020. The survey was completed by 107 prescribing clinicians and 83 NPT clinicians.
resultsPrescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had only moderate levels of familiarity with core elements of the policy. Prescribing clinicians had higher levels of frustration caring for OHP patients with back pain than NPT clinicians (83 vs. 34%, p<0.001) and were less confident in their ability to provide effective care (73 vs. 85%, p = .025). Eighty-six percent of prescribing clinicians and 83% of NPT clinicians thought active NPT treatments were effective; 74 and 70% thought passive NPT treatments were effective. Forty percent of prescribing clinicians and 25% of NPT clinicians (p<0.001) thought medically-light therapies were effective, while 29% of prescribing clinicians and 10% of NPT clinicians thought medically-intensive treatments were effective (p=0.001). Prescribing clinicians thought increased access to NPTs improved outcomes, while opinions were less consistent on the impact of restricting opioid prescribing.
conclusionsPrescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had varying perspectives of a Medicaid coverage policy to increase evidence-based back pain care. Understanding these perspectives is important for contextualizing policy effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.