Article

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

Northwestern Health Sciences University, Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA.
Trials (Impact Factor: 2.12). 03/2010; 11:24. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-24
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.
This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.
This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333.

Full-text

Available from: Gert Bronfort, Jun 14, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
82 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Back pain, the most common type of pain reported by older adults, is often undertreated for reasons that are poorly understood, especially in minority populations. The objective of this study was to understand older adults’ beliefs and perspectives regarding care-seeking for restricting back pain (back pain that restricts activity). Methods We used data from a diverse sample of 93 older adults (median age 83) who reported restricting back pain during the past 3 months. A semi-structured discussion guide was used in 23 individual interviews and 16 focus groups to prompt participants to share experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about managing restricting back pain. Transcripts were analyzed in an iterative process to develop thematic categories. Results Three themes for why older adults may not seek care for restricting back pain were identified: (1) beliefs about the age-related inevitability of restricting back pain, (2) negative attitudes toward medication and/or surgery, and (3) perceived importance of restricting back pain relative to other comorbidities. No new themes emerged in the more diverse focus groups. Conclusions Illness perceptions (including pain-related beliefs), and interactions with providers may influence older adults’ willingness to seek care for restricting back pain. These results highlight opportunities to improve the care for older adults with restricting back pain.
    BMC Geriatrics 04/2015; 15(1). DOI:10.1186/s12877-015-0042-z · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Low back pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition that affects the health and quality of life of older adults. Older people often consult primary care physicians about back pain, with many also receiving concurrent care from complementary and alternative medicine providers, most commonly doctors of chiropractic. However, a collaborative model of treatment coordination between these two provider groups has yet to be tested. The primary aim of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults Clinical Trial is to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a patient-centered, collaborative care model with family medicine physicians and doctors of chiropractic for the treatment of low back pain in older adults. Methods/design This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial will enroll 120 participants, age 65 years or older with subacute or chronic low back pain lasting at least one month, from a community-based sample in the Quad-Cities, Iowa/Illinois, USA. Eligible participants are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 12 weeks of medical care, concurrent medical and chiropractic care, or collaborative medical and chiropractic care. Primary outcomes are self-rated back pain and disability. Secondary outcomes include general and functional health status, symptom bothersomeness, expectations for treatment effectiveness and improvement, fear avoidance behaviors, depression, anxiety, satisfaction, medication use and health care utilization. Treatment safety and adverse events also are monitored. Participant-rated outcome measures are collected via self-reported questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews at baseline, and at 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52 weeks post-randomization. Provider-rated expectations for treatment effectiveness and participant improvement also are evaluated. Process outcomes are assessed through qualitative interviews with study participants and research clinicians, chart audits of progress notes and content analysis of clinical trial notes. Discussion This pragmatic, pilot randomized controlled trial uses a mixed method approach to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, feasibility, and participant and provider perceptions of collaborative care between medical doctors and doctors of chiropractic in the treatment of older adults with low back pain. Trial registration This trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 04 March 2011 with the ID number of NCT01312233.
    Trials 01/2013; 14(1):18. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-14-18 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Back and neck disability are frequent in older adults resulting in loss of function and independence. Exercise therapy and manual therapy, like spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), have evidence of short and intermediate term effectiveness for spinal disability in the general population and growing evidence in older adults. For older populations experiencing chronic spinal conditions, long term management may be more appropriate to maintain improvement and minimize the impact of future exacerbations. Research is limited comparing short courses of treatment to long term management of spinal disability. The primary aim is to compare the relative effectiveness of 12 weeks versus 36 weeks of SMT and supervised rehabilitative exercise (SRE) in older adults with back and neck disability. Randomized, mixed-methods, comparative effectiveness trial conducted at a university-affiliated research clinic in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area. Independently ambulatory community dwelling adults ≥ 65 years of age with back and neck disability of minimum 12 weeks duration (n = 200). 12 weeks SMT + SRE or 36 weeks SMT + SRE. Blocked 1:1 allocation; computer generated scheme, concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Functional outcome examiners are blinded to treatment allocation; physical nature of the treatments prevents blinding of participants and providers to treatment assignment. 36 weeks post-randomization. Self-report questionnaires administered at 2 baseline visits and 4, 12, 24, 36, 52, and 78 weeks post-randomization. Primary outcomes include back and neck disability, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and Neck Disability Index. Secondary outcomes include pain, general health status, improvement, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, satisfaction, and medication use. Functional outcome assessment occurs at baseline and week 37 for hand grip strength, short physical performance battery, and accelerometry. Individual qualitative interviews are conducted when treatment ends. Data on expectations, falls, side effects, and adverse events are systematically collected. Linear mixed-model method for repeated measures to test for between-group differences with baseline values as covariates. Treatments that address the management of spinal disability in older adults may have far reaching implications for patient outcomes, clinical guidelines, and healthcare policy. www.ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01057706.
    07/2014; 22(1):26. DOI:10.1186/s12998-014-0026-7