Abstract
M.Tech. (Chiropractic)
The aim of this study was to determine the most effective treatment protocol for
cervical spine facet syndrome, with regards to treatment frequency. Group one
was treated three times weekly, and group two was treated once weekly. Both
groups were treated with chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine over a
period of six treatments with a two week follow-up consultation. It was hypothesised that the group treated three times weekly would respond better compared to the once weekly treatment group. The study was a clinical trial involving two experimental groups of fifteen patients each (n=15), total sample size N=30. Volunteers responded to advertisements placed in the local press. Those who met the criteria, in other words suffered from cervical spine facet syndrome, were included in the study. Objective data was acquired using a goniometer to measure cervical spine range of motion.
Subjective data was obtained by participants recording their progress on the
Vemon-Miorneck pain and disability index and the Numerical pain rating scale. Data obtained from the range of motion testing showed that both groups responded with statistical significance to the treatment, but no statistically significant difference was obtained when the two respective groups were compared to each other. It was also noted that specifically rotation bilaterally for both groups, and left lateral flexion for group 1 (treated three times weekly), showed no statistically significant improvement at all. Statistical analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaires indicated that both
groups responded with statistical significance to the treatment, but when group was compared to group 2, no statistically significant difference was noted between the two groups. This rejects the hypothesis that three times weekly chiropractic treatment is more beneficial to the patient, than once weekly chiropractic treatment. This study concluded that there was no statistical difference between the two above mentioned groups and no difference in response to different treatment frequencies. Therefore it shows that less frequent treatment is not to the detriment of the patients' progress and might be of benefit for achieving cost effectiveness.