Search

ObjectiveTo generate crosswalk equations and tables for 4 pain impact measures: the Impact Stratification Score (ISS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity Scale (PEG).DesignCross-sectional survey assessing demographics and pain impact. Crosswalks were developed using item-response theory (IRT) cocalibrations and linear regressions between the ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and PEG.SettingOnline panel.ParticipantsPopulation-based sample of United States adults aged 18 and older. Eligibility criteria were reporting current back pain, not reporting 2 fake health conditions, and having data for 2 or more pain measures (N=1530; 37% of sample). Crosswalks were developed (n=1030) and cross-validated in a subsample of 500 participants (n=125 randomly sampled from each ISS quartile).InterventionsNot applicable.Main outcome measuresISS, ODI, RMDQ, and the PEG.ResultsAssociations of the ISS with the PEG and ODI met the criteria for IRT cocalibration. Other measure pairs were crosswalked using regression. Associations were strongest between the PEG and the ISS (r=0.87, normalized mean absolute error [NMAE]=0.38) and between the ODI and the ISS (r=0.85, NMAE=0.39). Associations were weakest between the PEG and the RMDQ (r=0.69, R2=0.48, NMAE: 0.55-0.58). Regression equations and IRT accounted for 48%-64% of the variance (NMAE: 0.38-0.58) in corresponding pain measures in the cross-validation sample.ConclusionsThe crosswalks between the ISS and common legacy pain measures created in this study of a nationally representative sample of United States adults with back pain can be used to estimate 1 pain impact measure from another. Further evaluation in clinical samples is recommended.

BackgroundResearchers have many options for web-based survey data collection, ranging from access to curated probability-based panels, where individuals are selectively invited to join based on their membership in a representative population, to convenience panels, which are open for anyone to join. The mix of respondents available also varies greatly regarding representation of a population of interest and in motivation to provide thoughtful and accurate responses. Despite the additional dataset-building labor required of the researcher, convenience panels are much less expensive than probability-based panels. However, it is important to understand what may be given up regarding data quality for those cost savings.ObjectiveThis study examined the relative costs and data quality of fielding equivalent surveys on Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a convenience panel, and KnowledgePanel, a nationally representative probability-based panel.MethodsWe administered the same survey measures to MTurk (in 2021) and KnowledgePanel (in 2022) members. We applied several recommended quality assurance steps to enhance the data quality achieved using MTurk. Ipsos, the owner of KnowledgePanel, followed their usual (industry standard) protocols. The survey was designed to support psychometric analyses and included >60 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), demographics, and a list of health conditions. We used 2 fake conditions ("syndomitis" and "chekalism") to identify those more likely to be honest respondents. We examined the quality of each platform's data using several recommended metrics (eg, consistency, reliability, representativeness, missing data, and correlations) including and excluding those respondents who had endorsed a fake condition and examined the impact of weighting on representativeness.ResultsWe found that prescreening in the MTurk sample (removing those who endorsed a fake health condition) improved data quality but KnowledgePanel data quality generally remained superior. While MTurk's unweighted point estimates for demographics exhibited the usual mismatch with national averages (younger, better educated, and lower income), weighted MTurk data matched national estimates. KnowledgePanel's point estimates better matched national benchmarks even before poststratification weighting. Correlations between PROMIS measures and age and income were similar in MTurk and KnowledgePanel; the mean absolute value of the difference between each platform's 137 correlations was 0.06, and 92% were

IntroductionThe Impact Stratification Score (ISS) is a measure of the impact of chronic low back pain (LBP) consisting of nine Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) items, but no studies have examined the ISS or its association with psychological symptoms in military samples. This study examines longitudinal associations between psychological symptoms and the ISS among military service members.Material and methodsThe study involved secondary data analysis of a sample of active duty U.S. military service members aged 18-50 years with LBP (n = 733). Participants completed the PROMIS-29 at three time points during treatment: baseline (time 1, T1), week 6 of treatment (time 2, T2), and week 12 of treatment (time 3, T3). The impact of LBP was quantified using the ISS (ranging from 8 = least impact to 50 = greatest impact). Psychological symptoms were assessed as PROMIS-29 anxiety and depression scores. Separate autoregressive cross-lagged models examined reciprocal associations of ISSs with anxiety, depression, and emotional distress scores from T1 to T3.ResultsWithin each time point, the ISS was significantly and positively correlated with anxiety and depression. In autoregressive cross-lagged models, anxiety and depression predicted the ISS at the next time point and associations were similar in magnitude (e.g., anxiety T2 to ISS T3: β = 0.12, P

Among those with low back pain (LBP), individuals with chronic LBP (CLBP) face different treatment recommendations and incur the majority of suffering and costs. However, the way CLBP has been defined varies greatly. This study used a scoping review and qualitative and quantitative analyses of data from LBP patients to explore this variation. CLBP in most recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was defined by duration of pain, most commonly ≥3 months. However, individuals with LBP most often define CLBP by frequency. CLBP has also been defined using a combination of duration and frequency (16% of RCTs and 20% of individuals), including 6% of recent RCTs that followed the NIH Pain Consortium research task force (RTF) definition. Although not a defining characteristic of CLBP for individuals, almost 15% of recent RCTs required CLBP to have a healthcare provider diagnosis. In our LBP sample moving from ≥3 months to the RTF definition reduced the CLBP group size by 25% and resulted in a group that used more pain management options and reported worse health across all outcome measures. A pain duration definition offers ease of application. However, refinements to this definition (eg, RTF) can identify those who may be better intervention targets. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the definitions used for CLBP by researchers and individuals, and the impact of these definitions on pain management and health outcomes. This information may help researchers choose better study inclusion criteria and clinicians to better understand their patients' beliefs about CLBP.

BackgroundIn 2014, the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Research Task Force recommended that patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) be stratified by its impact on their lives. They proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) to help guide therapy and facilitate study comparability. The ISS has been evaluated as a continuous measure, but not for use as a stratification or classification scheme.ObjectivesIdentify the characteristics of successful schemes to inform the use of the ISS for stratification or classification.Study designScoping review of the peer-reviewed literature.MethodsSearch of PubMed, CINAHL, and APA PsycInfo to identify patient self-report-based classification schemes applicable to CLBP. Data were captured on the methods used for each scheme's development, the domains covered, their scoring criteria and what the classification has successfully measured. The study was reviewed and approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (2019-0651-AM02).ResultsThe search identified 87 published articles about the development and testing of 5 classification schemes: 1) The Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Screening Tool, 2) Multiaxial Assessment of Pain, 3) Graded Chronic Pain Scale, 4) Back Pain Classification Scale, and 5) Chronic Pain Risk Score. All have been shown to be predictive of future outcomes and the STarT Back has been found useful in identifying effective classification-specific treatment. Each scheme had a different classification scoring structure, was developed using different methods, and 3 included domains not found in the ISS.LimitationsExpanding the search to other databases may have identified more classification schemes. Our minimum number of publications inclusion criterion eliminated dozens of cluster analyses, some of which may have eventually been replicated.ConclusionsThe methods used to develop these successful classification schemes, especially those that use straightforward scoring schemes, should be considered for use in the development of a scheme based on the ISS.

This study examines Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v1.0 outcomes of chiropractic care in a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial and compares the PROMIS measures to: 1) worst pain intensity from a numerical pain rating 0-10 scale, 2) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and 3) global improvement (modified visual analog scale). A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC). Three military treatment facilities. 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change. We found statistically significant mean group differences favoring UMC+CC for all PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ score. Area under the curve estimates for global improvement for the PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ, ranged from 0.79 to 0.83. Findings from this pre-planned secondary analysis demonstrate that chiropractic care impacts health-related quality of life beyond pain and pain-related disability. Further, comparable findings were found between the 24-item RMDQ and the PROMIS®-29 v1.0 briefer scales.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) with in-person recruitment and web-based surveys as a method to (1) recruit study participants and (2) obtain low-cost data quickly from chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain in the United States.MethodsIn this 2-arm quasi-experimental study, we used in-person clinical sampling and web-based surveys from a separate study (RAND sample, n = 1677, data collected October 2016 to January 2017) compared with MTurk (n = 310, data collected November 2016) as a sampling and data collection tool. We gathered patient-reported health outcomes and other characteristics of adults with chronic low back pain receiving chiropractic care. Parametric and nonparametric tests were run. We assessed statistical and practical differences based on P values and effect sizes, respectively.ResultsCompared with the RAND sample, the MTurk sample was statistically significantly younger (mean age 35.4 years, SD 9.7 vs 48.9, SD 14.8), made less money (24% vs 17% reported less than $30,000 annual income), and reported worst mental health than the RAND sample. Other differences were that the MTurk sample had more men (37% vs 29%), fewer White patients (87% vs 92%), more Hispanic patients (9% vs 5%), fewer people with a college degree (59% vs 68%), and patients were more likely to be working full time (62% vs 58%). The MTurk sample was more likely to have chronic low back pain (78% vs 66%) that differed in pain frequency and duration. The MTurk sample had less disability and better global health scores. In terms of efficiency, the surveys cost $2.50 per participant in incentives for the MTurk sample. Survey development took 2 weeks and data collection took 1 month.ConclusionOur results suggest that there may be differences between crowdsourcing and a clinic-based sample. These differences range from small to medium on demographics and self-reported health. The low incentive costs and rapid data collection of MTurk makes it an economically viable method of collecting data from chiropractic patients with low back pain. Further research is needed to explore the utility of MTurk for recruiting clinical samples, such as comparisons to nationally representative samples.

IntroductionThe Impact Stratification Score (ISS) is a measure of the impact of chronic low back pain (LBP) consisting of nine Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) items, but no studies have examined the ISS or its association with psychological symptoms in military samples. This study examines longitudinal associations between psychological symptoms and the ISS among military service members.Material and methodsThe study involved secondary data analysis of a sample of active duty U.S. military service members aged 18-50 years with LBP (n = 733). Participants completed the PROMIS-29 at three time points during treatment: baseline (time 1, T1), week 6 of treatment (time 2, T2), and week 12 of treatment (time 3, T3). The impact of LBP was quantified using the ISS (ranging from 8 = least impact to 50 = greatest impact). Psychological symptoms were assessed as PROMIS-29 anxiety and depression scores. Separate autoregressive cross-lagged models examined reciprocal associations of ISSs with anxiety, depression, and emotional distress scores from T1 to T3.ResultsWithin each time point, the ISS was significantly and positively correlated with anxiety and depression. In autoregressive cross-lagged models, anxiety and depression predicted the ISS at the next time point and associations were similar in magnitude (e.g., anxiety T2 to ISS T3: β = 0.12, P

BackgroundMusculoskeletal disorders are the second leading cause of disability worldwide.ObjectiveExamine experiences of chiropractic patients in the United States with chronic low back or neck pain.MethodObservational study of 1853 chronic low back pain and neck pain patients (74% female) who completed an online questionnaire at the 3-month follow-up that included Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items assessing their experiences with care.ResultsWe found similar reports of communication for the chiropractic sample and patients in the 2016 CAHPS National Database, but 85% in the database versus 79% in the chiropractic sample gave the most positive response to the time spent with provider item. More patients in the CAHPS database rated their provider at the top of the scale (8 percentage points). More chiropractic patients reported always getting answers to questions the same day (16 percentage points) and always being seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time (29 percentage points).ConclusionsThe positive experiences of patients with chronic back and neck pain are supportive of their use of chiropractic care.

ObjectivesTo develop computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and short forms of self-report oral health measures that are predictive of both the children's oral health status index (COHSI) and the children's oral health referral recommendation (COHRR) scales, for children and adolescents, ages 8-17.Material and methodsUsing final item calibration parameters (discrimination and difficulty parameters) from the item response theory analysis, we performed post hoc CAT simulation. Items most frequently administered in the simulation were incorporated for possible inclusion in final oral health assessment toolkits, to select the best performing eight items for COHSI and COHRR.ResultsTwo previously identified unidimensional sets of self-report items consisting of 19 items for the COHSI and 22 items for the COHRR were administered through CAT resulting in eight-item short forms for both the COHSI and COHRR. Correlations between the simulated CAT scores and the full item bank representing the latent trait are r = .94 for COHSI and r = .96 for COHRR, respectively, which demonstrated high reliability of the CAT and short form.ConclusionsUsing established rigorous measurement development standards, the CAT and corresponding eight-item short form items for COHSI and COHRR were developed to assess the oral health status of children and adolescents, ages 8-17. These measures demonstrated good psychometric properties and can have clinical utility in oral health screening and evaluation and clinical referral recommendations.

ObjectivesTo develop child- and parent-reported toolkits for active caries and caries experience in children and adolescents, ages 8-17.MethodsA sample of 398 child/parent dyads recruited from 12 dental practices in Los Angeles County completed a computer-assisted survey that assessed oral health perceptions. In addition, children received a dental examination that identified the presence or absence of active caries and caries experience. A Multiple Adaptive Regression Splines model was used to identify a subset of survey items associated with active caries and caries experience. The splines and coefficients were refined by generalized cross-validation. Sensitivity and specificity for both dependent variables were evaluated.ResultsEleven child self-reported items were identified that had sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.45 relative to active caries. Twelve parent-reported items had a sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.50. Seven child self-reported items had a sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.34, and 11 parent-reported items had a sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.47 for caries experience.ConclusionsThe survey items identified here are useful in distinguishing children with and without active caries and with and without caries experience. This research presents a path towards using children's and their parents' reports about oral health to screen for clinically determined caries and caries exposure. The items identified in this study can be useful when clinical information is unavailable.

A crisis confronts the Complementary and Integrative Health (CIH) teaching institutions in the US. Research infrastructure is needed to build and sustain productive research programs and retain their own research faculty. In most health professions, this infrastructure is largely built through research grants. In CIH, most educational institutions are funded through student tuition, which has historically also had to be the source for building their research programs. Only a limited number of these institutions have emerged as National Institute of Health (NIH) grant-funded programs. As a result, the American chiropractic institutions have seen a retrenchment in the number of active research programs. In addition, although research training programs e.g., NIH's K awards are available for CIH researchers, these programs generally result in these researchers leaving their institutions and depriving future CIH practitioners of the benefit of being trained in a culture of research. One proposed solution is to leverage the substantial research infrastructure and long history of collaboration available at the RAND Corporation (https://www.rand.org) This article presents the proposed five components of the RAND Center for Collaborative CIH Research and the steps required to bring it to being: 1) the CIH Research Network - an online resource and collaborative site for CIH researchers; 2) the CIH Research Advisory Board - the governing body for the Center selected by its members; 3) the RAND CIH Interest Group - a group of RAND researchers with an interest in and who could provide support to CIH research; 4) CIH Researcher Training - access to existing RAND research training as well as the potential for the Center to provide a research training home for those with training grants; and 5) CIH RAND Partnership for Research - a mentorship program to support successful CIH research. By necessity the first step in the Center's creation would be a meeting between the heads of interested CIH institutions to work out the details and to obtain buy-in. The future success of CIH-directed research on CIH will require a pooling of talent and resources across institutions; something that the American chiropractic institutions have not yet been able to achieve. This article discusses one possible solution.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to describe coping strategies (eg, mechanisms, including self-treatment) that a person uses to reduce pain and its impact on functioning as reported by patients with chronic low back pain who were seen by doctors of chiropractic and how these coping strategies vary by patient characteristics. METHODS:Data were collected from a national sample of US chiropractic patients recruited from chiropractic practices in 6 states from major geographical regions of the United States using a multistage stratified sampling strategy. Reports of coping behaviors used to manage pain during the past 6 months were used to create counts across 6 domains: cognitive, self-care, environmental, medical care, social activities, and work. Exploratory analyses examined counts in domains and frequencies of individual items by levels of patient characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 1677 respondents with chronic low back pain reported using an average of 9 coping behaviors in the prior 6 months. Use of more types of behaviors were reported among those with more severe back pain, who rated their health as fair or poor and who had daily occurrences of pain. Exercise was more frequent among the healthy and those with less pain. Female respondents tended to report using more coping behaviors than men, and Hispanics more than non-Hispanics. CONCLUSION:Persons with chronic back pain were proactive in their coping strategies and frequently used self-care coping strategies like those provided by chiropractors in patient education. In alignment with patients' beliefs that their condition was chronic and lifelong, many patients attempted a wide range of coping strategies to relieve their pain.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this article is to describe how we designed patient survey instruments to ensure that patient data about preferences and experience could be included in appropriateness decisions. These actions were part of a project that examined the appropriateness of spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain.MethodsWe conducted focus groups, cognitive interviews, a literature review of measures in prior chiropractic and complementary and integrative health research, and a pilot study to develop questionnaires of patient preferences, experiences, values, and beliefs.ResultsQuestionnaires were administered online to 2024 individuals from 125 chiropractic clinics. The survey included 3 long questionnaires and 5 shorter ones. All were administered online. The baseline items had 2 questionnaires that respondents could complete in different sittings. Respondents completed shorter biweekly follow-ups every 2 weeks and a final questionnaire at 3 months. The 2 initial questionnaires had 81 and 140 items, the 5 biweekly follow-up questionnaires had 37 items each, and the endline questionnaire contained 121 items. Participants generally responded positively to the survey items, and 91% of the patients who completed a baseline questionnaire completed the endpoint survey 3 months later. We used "legacy" measures, and we also adapted measures and developed new measures for this study. Preliminary assessment of reliability and validity for a newly developed scale about coping behaviors indicates that the items work well together in a scale.ConclusionsThis article documents the challenges and the efforts involved in designing data collection tools to facilitate the inclusion of patient data into appropriateness decisions.

Study designA prospective observational study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate group-level and individual-level change in health-related quality of life among persons with chronic low back pain or neck pain receiving chiropractic care in the United States.Summary of background dataChiropractors treat chronic low back and neck pain, but there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of their treatment METHODS.: A 3-month longitudinal study of 2024 patients with chronic low back pain or neck pain receiving care from 125 chiropractic clinics at six locations throughout the United States was conducted. Ninety-one percent of the sample completed the baseline and 3-month follow-up survey (n = 1835). Average age was 49, 74% females, and most of the sample had a college degree, were non-Hispanic White, worked full-time, and had an annual income of $60,000 or more. Group-level (within-group t tests) and individual-level (coefficient of repeatability) changes on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) v2.0 profile measure was evaluated: six multi-item scales (physical functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social health, emotional distress) and physical and mental health summary scores.ResultsWithin-group t tests indicated significant group-level change (P

ObjectiveThis paper describes a process for ensuring and documenting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance in clinical practice-based research.MethodsThe Center of Excellence for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine was funded by National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health to develop the methods for researching the appropriateness of care in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine. We recruited 125 participating chiropractic clinics for enrolling patients and gathering their data via the online surveys. Chiropractic clinics completed the following: (1) obtained the files of patients who provided prior consent (the prospective sample), (2) obtained the files of the patients selected randomly using specified randomization procedures (the retrospective sample), and (3) transferred all patient data to the RAND Corporation via an encrypted file.ResultsMost of the doctors of chiropractic from clinical practices had no concerns about obtaining and transferring the files of patients who provided informed consent. However, some doctors were uneasy about allowing the researchers to access the randomly selected files of patients who had not provided prior authorization. This led us to develop a set of forms to provide clinics about HIPAA compliance.ConclusionFor this study, we provided clinics with information about the rules under HIPAA, demonstrated how the study complied with those rules, explained the logic behind the necessity for collecting files from both the prospective and retrospective samples, and, if requested, provided clinics with a confidentiality agreement signed by the study principal investigator and an organizational contracts representative. The process we developed may assist other complementary and integrative health researchers and practitioners in future studies.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this article is to report on the Center of Excellence for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine at RAND Corporation. The overall project examined the appropriateness of chiropractic spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic cervical pain using the RAND and University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, including patient preferences and costs, to acknowledge the importance of patient-centered care in clinical decision-making.MethodsThis article is a narrative summary of the overall project and its inter-related components (ie, 4 Research Project Grants and 2 centers), including the Data Collection Core, whose activities and learning will be the subject of a following series of methods articles.ResultsThe project team faced many challenges in accomplishing data collection goals. The processes we developed to overcome barriers may be of use to other researchers and for practitioners who may want to participate in such studies in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine.ConclusionFor this large, complex, successful project, we gathered online survey data, collected charts, and abstracted chart data from thousands of chiropractic patients. The present article delineates the challenges and lessons that were learned during this project so that others may gain from the authors' experience. This information may be of use to future research that collects data from independent practitioners and their patients because it provides what is needed to be successful in such studies and may encourage participation.

OBJECTIVES:Chronic low back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP) are the most common types of chronic pain, and chiropractic spinal manipulation is a common nonpharmacologic treatment. This study presents the characteristics of a large United States sample of chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP. METHODS:Data were collected from chiropractic patients using multistage systematic stratified sampling with 4 sampling levels: regions and states, sites (ie, metropolitan areas), providers and clinics, and patients. The sites and regions were San Diego, California; Tampa, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Seneca Falls and Upstate New York; Portland, Oregon; and Dallas, Texas. Data were collected from patients through an iPad-based prescreening questionnaire in the clinic and emailed links to full screening and baseline online questionnaires. The goal was 20 providers or clinics and 7 patients with CLBP and 7 with CNP from each clinic. RESULTS:We had 6342 patients at 125 clinics complete the prescreening questionnaire, 3333 patients start the full screening questionnaire, and 2024 eligible patients completed the baseline questionnaire: 518 with CLBP only, 347 with CNP only, and 1159 with both. In general, most of this sample were highly-educated, non-Hispanic, white females with at least partial insurance coverage for chiropractic care who have been in pain and using chiropractic care for years. Over 90% reported high satisfaction with their care, few used narcotics, and avoiding surgery was the most important reason they chose chiropractic care. CONCLUSIONS:Given the prevalence of CLBP and CNP, the need to find effective nonpharmacologic alternatives for chronic pain, and the satisfaction these patients found with their care, further study of these patients is worthwhile.

Background contextMobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used to benefit patients with chronic low back pain. However, questions remain about their efficacy, dosing, safety, and how these approaches compare with other therapies.PurposeThe present study aims to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic low back pain.Study design/settingThis is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Outcome measuresThe present study measures self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, and adverse events.MethodsWe identified studies by searching multiple electronic databases from January 2000 to March 2017, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation or mobilization therapies with sham, no treatment, other active therapies, and multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project is funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under Award Number U19AT007912.ResultsFifty-one trials were included in the systematic review. Nine trials (1,176 patients) provided sufficient data and were judged similar enough to be pooled for meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference for a reduction of pain was SMD=-0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.09, p=.004; I2=57% after treatment; within seven trials (923 patients), the reduction in disability was SMD=-0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03, p=.03; I2=78% for manipulation or mobilization compared with other active therapies. Subgroup analyses showed that manipulation significantly reduced pain and disability, compared with other active comparators including exercise and physical therapy (SMD=-0.43, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.00; p=.05, I2=79%; SMD=-0.86, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.45; p

Background:Parents' perceptions of their 8-17-year-old children's oral health status were assessed using a sample from diverse dental clinics in Greater Los Angeles County to identify constructs for a survey instrument. Methods:Focus groups with 29 parents or guardians were conducted to identify themes that informed development of survey items. The draft items were administered to a different group of 32 parents or guardians in cognitive interviews, and revised for subsequent field-testing. Results:Thematic and narrative analyses were performed after the focus groups and key lay-oriented dimensions were uncovered, notably the relationship between oral health, systemic health and the life course. In the cognitive interviews, parents entered multiple responses to questions related to the look of their child's teeth, and their overall perception of tooth color. Parents also assessed their child's fear or discomfort with the dental experience, and other social and psychological concerns related to oral health status. The temporal dimensions of certain items were specified; for example, oral pain and mood items were revised to include duration of the symptom or mood state. As parents tended to confuse oral health maintenance and prevention, these two related concepts were separated into two items. Based on the qualitative work, we revised items in preparation for a field test. Conclusions:As a PRO measurement study, qualitative research informed a field test survey to assess factors associated with oral health status and the individual's perceptions and subjective views of these constructs for eventual item development for epidemiological and clinical use.

PurposeTo elicit perceptions of oral health in children and adolescents as an initial step in the development of oral health item banks for the Patient-Reported Oral Health Outcomes Measurement Information System project.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse youth (8-12, 13-17 years) to identify perceptions of oral health status. We performed content analysis, including a thematic and narrative analysis, to identify important themes.ResultsWe identified three unique themes that the youth associated with their oral health status: (1) understanding the value of maintaining good oral health over the life course, with respect to longevity and quality of life in the adult years; (2) positive association between maintaining good oral health and interpersonal relationships at school, and dating, for older youth; and (3) knowledge of the benefits of orthodontic treatment to appearance and positive self-image, while holding a strong view as to the discomfort associated with braces.ConclusionsThe results provide valuable information about core domains for the oral health item banks to be developed and generated content for new items to be developed and evaluated with cognitive interviews and in a field test.

ObjectiveExplore patterns in patients' disclosures of supplement use and identify provider and patient characteristics associated with disclosures.MethodsCross-sectional study of 61 outpatient primary care, integrative medicine, and complementary medicine providers, and 603 of their patients. Primary outcomes were supplement disclosures (based on audio recorded office visits, post-visit patient surveys and medical record abstractions for the day of the visits).ResultsSeventy-nine percent of 603 patients reported on a post-visit survey that they took a total of 2107 dietary supplements. Of those taking supplements, 232 patients (48.6%) discussed at least one supplement with their provider on the day of their office visit. However, patients disclosed only 714 (33.9%) of the 2107 supplements they were taking. Patients more frequently disclosed supplement use when they saw providers who attributed greater importance to asking about supplements. Patient characteristics such as patient activation, number of medical conditions, and use of prescription medications were not associated with disclosure of supplement use.ConclusionsProvider rating of the importance of asking about supplements is a major factor prompting patients' disclosures of supplement use.Practice implicationsProvider-targeted interventions to encourage provider awareness about potential supplement-drug interactions are needed to increase disclosures about dietary supplement use.

BackgroundDietary supplement use in the United States is common. Patients can procure supplements without a prescription, and often do not disclose supplement use to their healthcare providers. Providers and patients may be uncertain about what would be appropriate or helpful in discussions of supplements during routine office visits.ObjectiveTo explore provider and patient expectations for discussions of dietary supplements.DesignSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of healthcare providers from three specialties and their patients who reported taking supplements.ParticipantsThirty-five outpatient providers (14 primary care, six integrative medicine, and 15 complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers) and 107 of their patients.ApproachQualitative analysis of transcripts using grounded theory and iterative review.ResultsBoth providers and patients raised twelve common topics about dietary supplements that they felt were important to discuss during office visits, such as: supplements taken; supplement risks (interactions, safety/harm, side effects/adverse events); treatment benefits; efficacy; alternative treatments; and patient expectations/preferences for treatment. Some topics were mentioned more frequently by providers than patients, such as how to take, reason for taking, and evidence for use. Providers raised several topics that were mentioned infrequently by patients. Supplement costs and regulations were not brought up by any patients, even though consideration of these topics could influence patient decisions to take supplements. Complementary healthcare providers brought up topics not mentioned by primary care providers, such as the importance of supplement brands and supplement mega-dosing.ConclusionsPatients and providers have concordant views about the need to discuss patient supplement use and ensure patient safety. Patients may undervalue, be unaware of, or discount information about cost or regulations that could affect their decision-making about supplement use. Future studies could examine the value, acceptability, and influence of a more comprehensive approach to discussions to help patients appropriately evaluate supplements.

This commentary makes the case for greater collaboration between public health professionals and integrative, complementary and traditional health practitioners (ICTHP). Previous partnerships have been successful, and more such collaborative work is needed to help overcome division, enhance the health workforce, and move all involved toward shared goals. ICTHP providers may be uniquely able to work across ideological differences and engage individuals and communities who are less trusting of public health, including those who are vaccine hesitant. Diverse partnerships can be difficult to maintain, but the application of equitable processes may aid their success. In the face of highly complex public health challenges, partnerships with ICTHP are critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAn international panel of experts was convened to examine the challenges faced in conducting economic analyses of Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medicine (CAIM).MethodsA one and a half-day panel of experts was convened in early 2011 to discuss what was needed to bring about robust economic analysis of CAIM. The goals of the expert panel were to review the current state of the science of economic evaluations in health, and to discuss the issues involved in applying these methods to CAIM, recognizing its unique characteristics. The panel proceedings were audiotaped and a thematic analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. The results were then discussed and differences resolved. This manuscript summarizes the discussions held by the panel members on each theme.ResultsThe panel identified seven major themes regarding economic evaluation that are particularly salient to determining the economics of CAIM: standardization (in order to compare CAIM with conventional therapies, the same basic economic evaluation methods and framework must be used); identifying the question being asked, the audience targeted for the results and whose perspective is being used (e.g., the patient perspective is especially relevant to CAIM because of the high level of self-referral and out-of-pocket payment); the analytic methods to be used (e.g., the importance of treatment description and fidelity); the outcomes to be measured (e.g., it is important to consider a broad range of outcomes, particularly for CAIM therapies, which often treat the whole person rather than a specific symptom or disease); costs (e.g., again because of treating the whole person, the impact of CAIM on overall healthcare costs, rather than only disease-specific costs, should be measured); implementation (e.g., highlighting studies where CAIM allows cost savings may help offset its image as an "add on" cost); and generalizability (e.g., proper reporting can enable study results to be useful beyond the study sample).ConclusionsThe business case for CAIM depends on economic analysis and standard methods for conducting such economic evaluations exist. The challenge for CAIM lies in appropriately applying these methods. The deliberations of this panel provide a list of factors to be considered in meeting that challenge.

This article is based on an extensive review of integrative medicine (IM) and integrative health care (IHC). Since there is no general agreement of what constitutes IM/IHC, several major problems were identified that make the review of work in this field problematic. In applying the systematic review methodology, we found that many of those captured articles that used the term integrative medicine were in actuality referring to adjunctive, complementary, or supplemental medicine. The objective of this study was to apply a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the results of a systematic review of IM and IHC will differ according to what inclusion criteria is used based on the definition of IM/IHC. By analyzing 4 different scenarios, the authors show that, due to unclear usage of these terms, results vary dramatically, exposing an inconsistent literature base for this field.

UnlabelledBackgroundIn the United States (US) a shortage of primary care physicians has become evident. Other health care providers such as chiropractors might help address some of the nation's primary care needs simply by being located in areas of lesser primary care resources. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of the chiropractic workforce across the country and compare it to that of primary care physicians.MethodsWe used nationally representative data to estimate the per 100,000 capita supply of chiropractors and primary care physicians according to the 306 predefined Hospital Referral Regions. Multiple variable Poisson regression was used to examine the influence of population characteristics on the supply of both practitioner-types.ResultsAccording to these data, there are 74,623 US chiropractors and the per capita supply of chiropractors varies more than 10-fold across the nation. Chiropractors practice in areas with greater supply of primary care physicians (Pearson's correlation 0.17, p-value

Abstract Background According to the United States census, there are 28 categories that define “Hispanic/Latinos.” This paper compares differences in oral health status between Mexican immigrants and other Latino immigrant groups. Methods Derived from a community-based sample (N = 240) in Los Angeles, this cross-sectional study uses an interview covering demographic and behavioral measures, and an intraoral examination using NIDCR epidemiologic criteria. Descriptive, bivariate analysis, and multiple regression analysis were conducted to examine the determinants that are associated with the Oral Health Status Index (OHSI). Results Mexican immigrants had a significantly higher OHSI (p

A systematic review was conducted to assess the level of evidence for integrative health care research. We searched PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, the entire Cochrane Library, MANTIS, Social SciSearch, SciSearch Cited Ref Sci, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and NCCAM grantee publications listings, from database inception to May 2009, as well as searches of the "gray literature." Available studies published in English language were included. Three independent reviewers rated each article and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 50). Our search yielded 11,891 total citations but 6 clinical studies, including 4 randomized, met our inclusion criteria. There are no available systematic reviews/meta-analyses published that met our inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed independently using quality checklists of the SIGN 50. Only a small number of RCTs and CCTs with a limited number of patients and lack of adequate control groups assessing integrative health care research are available. These studies provide limited evidence of effective integrative health care on some modalities. However, integrative health care regimen appears to be generally safe.