Establishing an Integrative Medicine Program Within an Academic Health Center: Essential Considerations.

Integrative medicine (IM) refers to the combination of conventional and "complementary" medical services (e.g., chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, mindfulness training). More than half of all medical schools in the United States and Canada have programs in IM, and more than 30 academic health centers currently deliver multidisciplinary IM care. What remains unclear, however, is the ideal delivery model (or models) whereby individuals can responsibly access IM care safely, effectively, and reproducibly in a coordinated and cost-effective way.Current models of IM across existing clinical centers vary tremendously in their organizational settings, principal clinical focus, and services provided; practitioner team composition and training; incorporation of research activities and educational programs; and administrative organization (e.g., reporting structure, use of medical records, scope of clinical practice) and financial strategies (i.e., specific business plans and models for sustainability).In this article, the authors address these important strategic issues by sharing lessons learned from the design and implementation of an IM facility within an academic teaching hospital, the Brigham and Women's Hospital at Harvard Medical School; and review alternative options based on information about IM centers across the United States.The authors conclude that there is currently no consensus as to how integrative care models should be optimally organized, implemented, replicated, assessed, and funded. The time may be right for prospective research in "best practices" across emerging models of IM care nationally in an effort to standardize, refine, and replicate them in preparation for rigorous cost-effectiveness evaluations.

A model of integrative care for low-back pain.

OBJECTIVES: While previous studies focused on the effectiveness of individual complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies, the value of providing patients access to an integrated program involving multiple CAM and conventional therapies remains unknown. The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility and effects of a model of multidisciplinary integrative care for subacute low-back pain (LBP) in an academic teaching hospital. DESIGN: This was a pilot randomized trial comparing an individualized program of integrative care (IC) plus usual care to usual care (UC) alone for adults with LBP. SUBJECTS: Twenty (20) individuals with LPB of 3-12 weeks' duration were recruited from an occupational health clinic and community health center. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to 12 weeks of individualized IC plus usual care versus UC alone. IC was provided by a trained multidisciplinary team offering CAM therapies and conventional medical care. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were symptoms (pain, bothersomeness), functional status (Roland-Morris score), SF-12, worry, and difficulty performing three self-selected activities. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, participants in the IC group had a median of 12.0 visits (range 5-25). IC participants experienced significantly greater improvements at 12 weeks than those receiving UC alone in symptom bothersomeness (p=0.02) and pain (p=0.005), and showed greater improvement in functional status (p=0.08). Rates of improvement were greater for patients in IC than UC in functional status (p=0.02), bothersomeness (p=0.002), and pain scores (p=0.001). Secondary outcomes of self-selected most challenging activity, worry, and the SF-12 also showed improvement in the IC group at 12 weeks. These differences persisted at 26 weeks, but were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible for a multidisciplinary, outpatient IC team to deliver coordinated, individualized intervention to patients with subacute LBP. Results showed a promising trend for benefit of treating patients with persistent LBP with this IC model, and warrant evaluation in a full-scale study.

Addition of choice of complementary therapies to usual care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness and cost of usual care plus patient choice of acupuncture, chiropractic, or massage therapy (choice) compared with usual care alone in patients with acute low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have evaluated care models with facilitated access to and financial coverage for adjunctive complementary and alternative medicine therapies. METHODS: A total of 444 patients with acute LBP (<21 days) were recruited from 4 clinical sites and randomized into 2 groups: usual care or choice. Outcomes included symptoms (bothersomeness), functional status (Roland), and satisfaction between baseline and 5 weeks, and cost of medical care in the 12 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: After 5 weeks, providing patients with a choice did not yield clinically important reductions in symptoms (median -4, [interquartile range -7, -2] for usual care, and -5 [-7, -3] for choice; P = 0.002) or improvements in functional status (-8 [-13, -2] for usual care, and -9 [-15, -4] for choice; P = 0.15). Although there was a significantly greater satisfaction with care in the choice group, this came at a net increase in costs of 244 dollars per patient. This consisted of a 99 dollars reduction in the average cost to the insurer for medical care but an additional cost of 343 dollars, for an average of 6.0 complementary and alternative medicine treatments per patient. CONCLUSIONS: A model of care that offered access to a choice of complementary and alternative medicine therapies for acute LBP did not result in clinically significant improvements in symptom relief or functional restoration. This model was associated with greater patient satisfaction but increased total costs. Future evaluations of this choice model should focus on patients with chronic conditions (including chronic back pain) for which conventional medical care is often costly and of limited benefit.