Kristine Westrom’s research while affiliated with University of Minnesota, Duluth and other places

Background Low back pain (LBP) is influenced by interrelated biological, psychological, and social factors, however current back pain management is largely dominated by one-size fits all unimodal treatments. Team based models with multiple provider types from complementary professional disciplines is one way of integrating therapies to address patients’ needs more comprehensively. Methods This parallel group randomized clinical trial conducted from May 2007 to August 2010 aimed to evaluate the relative clinical effectiveness of 12 weeks of monodisciplinary chiropractic care (CC), versus multidisciplinary integrative care (IC), for adults with sub-acute and chronic LBP. The primary outcome was pain intensity and secondary outcomes were disability, improvement, medication use, quality of life, satisfaction, frequency of symptoms, missed work or reduced activities days, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, pain coping strategies and kinesiophobia measured at baseline and 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. Linear mixed models were used to analyze outcomes. Results 201 participants were enrolled. The largest reductions in pain intensity occurred at the end of treatment and were 43% for CC and 47% for IC. The primary analysis found IC to be significantly superior to CC over the 1-year period ( P = 0.02). The long-term profile for pain intensity which included data from weeks 4 through 52, showed a significant advantage of 0.5 for IC over CC (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; P = 0.02; 0 to 10 scale). The short-term profile (weeks 4 to 12) favored IC by 0.4, but was not statistically significant (95% CI − 0.02 to 0.9; P = 0.06). There was also a significant advantage over the long term for IC in some secondary measures (disability, improvement, satisfaction and low back symptom frequency), but not for others (medication use, quality of life, leg symptom frequency, fear avoidance beliefs, self-efficacy, active pain coping, and kinesiophobia). Importantly, no serious adverse events resulted from either of the interventions. Conclusions Participants in the IC group tended to have better outcomes than the CC group, however the magnitude of the group differences was relatively small. Given the resources required to successfully implement multidisciplinary integrative care teams, they may not be worthwhile, compared to monodisciplinary approaches like chiropractic care, for treating LBP. Trial registration NCT00567333.

Objective Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long‐term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter‐term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short‐term treatment (12 weeks) versus long‐term management (36 weeks) of back‐ and neck‐related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE). Methods Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent‐to‐treat approach used linear mixed‐model analysis to detect between‐group differences. Secondary analyses included other self‐reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures. Results A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short‐term and long‐term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score –3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –5.8, –2.0] versus ODI score –6.3 [95% CI –8.2, –4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score –7.3 [95% CI –9.1, –5.5] versus NDI score –9.0 [95% CI –10.8, –7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI –0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long‐term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self‐efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance. Conclusion For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

At July 2017, this protocol has been withdrawn. It was part of a series of three reviews (intended to update and replace the original review (Bronfort 2014)), but the series of reviews did not meet the expectations of PaPaS or Cochrane.

At July 2017, this protocol has been withdrawn. It was part of a series of three reviews (intended to update and replace the original review (Bronfort 2014)), but the series of reviews did not meet the expectations of PaPaS or Cochrane.

At July 2017, this protocol has been withdrawn. It was part of a series of three reviews (intended to update and replace the original review (Bronfort 2014)), but the series of reviews did not meet the expectations of PaPaS or Cochrane.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To quantify and compare the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for cervicogenic headache, classified according to the International Headache Society's (IHS) diagnostic criteria, with an active or placebo/sham comparison or wait-list control.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for the prevention of tension-type headache in adults.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objectives of the review are to quantify and compare the short- and long-term effects of manual treatment and spinal rehabilitative exercise for episodic and chronic migraine classified according to the International Headache Societies (IHS) diagnostic criteria.

Introduction: The world's population is aging quickly, leading to increased challenges of how to care for individuals who can no longer independently care for themselves. With global social and economic pressures leading to declines in family support, increased reliance is being placed on community- and government-based facilities to provide long-term care (LTC) for many of society's older citizens. Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) is commonly used by older adults and may offer an opportunity to enhance LTC residents' wellbeing. Little work has been done, however, rigorously examining the safety and effectiveness of CIH for LTC residents. Objective: The goal of this work is to describe a pilot project to develop and evaluate one model of CIH in an LTC facility in the Midwestern United States. Methods: A prospective, mixed-methods pilot project was conducted in two main phases: (1) preparation and (2) implementation and evaluation. The preparation phase entailed assessment, CIH model design and development, and training. A CIH model including acupuncture, chiropractic, and massage therapy, guided by principles of collaborative integration, evidence informed practice, and sustainability, was applied in the implementation and evaluation phase. CIH services were provided for 16 months in the LTC facility. Quantitative data collection included pain, quality of life, and adverse events. Qualitative interviews of LTC residents, their family members, and LTC staff members queried perceptions of CIH services. Results: A total of 46 LTC residents received CIH care, most commonly for musculoskeletal pain (61%). Participants were predominantly female (85%) and over the age of 80 years (67%). The median number of CIH treatments was 13, with a range of 1 to 92. Residents who were able to provide self-report data demonstrated, on average, a 15% decline in pain and a 4% improvement in quality of life. No serious adverse events related to treatment were documented; the most common mild and expected side effect was increased pain (63 reports over 859 treatments). Qualitative interviews revealed most residents, family members and LTC staff members felt CIH services were worthwhile due to perceived benefits including pain relief and enhanced psychological and social wellbeing. Conclusion: This project demonstrated that with extensive attention to preparation, one patient-centered model of CIH in LTC was feasible on several levels. Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that CIH can be safely implemented and might provide relief and enhanced wellbeing for residents. However, some aspects of model delivery and data collection were challenging, resulting in limitations, and should be addressed in future efforts

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.