Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. METHODS: Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

Discrepant Perceptions of Biopsychosocial and Active Care Recommendations Between Doctors of Chiropractic and Midlife and Older Adult Patients: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess perceptions about the inclusion of biopsychosocial and active care recommendations during chiropractic clinical encounters between doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and their midlife and older adult patients and to identify whether there were any discrepancies between their recollections. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional survey was part of a mixed-methods research project designed to gather information about the role of electronic health interventions for midlife and older adults who use chiropractic care. For this study, a convenience sample of 29 DCs and 48 chiropractic patients aged 50 years and older from 2 metropolitan areas in the United States completed online surveys between December 2020 and May 2021. The survey matched questions about components of chiropractic care discussed by patients and providers over 12 months. We used descriptive statistics to explore congruence in perceptions between groups and qualitative content analysis to describe DC perceptions of working with this population. RESULTS: Doctors of chiropractic and patients agreed (>90%) that pain management was the top reason midlife and older adults seek chiropractic care, yet differed in their prioritization of maintenance/wellness care, physical function/rehabilitation, and injury treatment as care drivers. While DCs reported frequent discussions about psychosocial recommendations, fewer patients reported talking about treatment goals (51%), self-care (43%), stress reduction (33%), or the impact of psychosocial factors (23%) and beliefs/attitudes (33%) on spinal health. Patients reported varied recollections about discussing activity limitations (2%) and exercise promotion (68%), being taught exercises (48%), or reassessing exercise progress (29%), which differed from higher levels reported by DCs. Qualitative themes from DCs included psychosocial considerations in patient education, importance of exercise/movement, role of chiropractic in lifestyle changes, and reimbursement limitations for older patients. CONCLUSION: Doctors of chiropractic and their patients reported discrepant perceptions about biopsychosocial and active care recommendations during clinical encounters. Patients reported modest emphasis on exercise promotion and limited discussion on self-care, stress reduction, and psychosocial factors related to spine health compared to the recollections of DCs who reported frequent discussions of these topics.

Qualitative Analysis of Illness Representations and Coping Perceptions Among Older Adults With Chronic Spinal Disability: "A Thought in the Back of My Mind".

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore older adults' illness representations, their beliefs about health, and their coping perceptions of chronic spinal disability. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study used structured interviews that were completed during a randomized trial of non-pharmacological management of spine-related disability with chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and exercise. Dual coders conducted a descriptive thematic analysis of 50 randomly selected transcripts supported by qualitative data management software. The Common-Sense Model provided an organizing framework for coding and interpretation. RESULTS: Fifty participants (34 women, median age: 68 years) described 4 illness representations, 4 coping styles, and 6 coping strategies for their management of spinal disability. Illness representations formed a continuum of little-to-no health impact to bothersome symptoms to heightened symptom intensity to unmanaged pain and/or disability. Most participants adopted either self-care or self-management coping styles, but some used healthcare-seeking or fear avoidance with worsening symptoms or interference with employment or preferred activities. Participants mentioned 6 coping strategies for spinal disability. Distraction included position changes, hobbies, and supportive relationships. Limitation focused on rest and/or relaxation, restricted movements, and activity modifications. Prevention enhanced self-care knowledge, posture and/or ergonomics, nutrition, and stress management. Movement emphasized stretching, home exercise and/or walking, and exercise therapy. Palliation augmented patient comfort through the use of heat and/or ice, over-the-counter medicine, and spinal manipulation. Avoidance strategies included missing employment, stopping house and/or yard work, and prescription medication. CONCLUSION: The community-dwelling older adults in this study offered varied illness representations of their chronic spinal disability. Most participants combined and personalized coping strategies to minimize pain and symptom impact; thus, representations may influence the coping styles adopted by older persons to manage their spinal conditions. A quote from a participant that pain was "a thought in the back of my mind" suggests the presence of cognitive and emotional processes that may influence individual perceptions and feelings about their spinal symptoms or conditions. These findings suggest that there may be a broader role for spine care clinicians to include teaching older people about self-management strategies to better cope with spinal disabilities.

Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT): Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in veterans. Chiropractic care is a well-integrated, nonpharmacological therapy in Veterans Affairs health care facilities, where doctors of chiropractic provide therapeutic interventions focused on the management of low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. However, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic care in terms of the number and frequency of treatment visits needed for optimal outcomes in veterans with low back pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic, parallel-group randomized trial at four Veterans Affairs sites will include 766 veterans with chronic low back pain who are randomly allocated to a course of low-dose (one to five visits) or higher-dose (eight to 12 visits) chiropractic care for 10 weeks (Phase 1). After Phase 1, participants within each treatment arm will again be randomly allocated to receive either monthly chiropractic chronic pain management for 10 months or no scheduled chiropractic visits (Phase 2). Assessments will be collected electronically. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire will be the primary outcome for Phase 1 at week 10 and Phase 2 at week 52. SUMMARY: This trial will provide evidence to guide the chiropractic dose in an initial course of care and an extended-care approach for veterans with chronic low back pain. Accurate information on the effectiveness of different dosing regimens of chiropractic care can greatly assist health care facilities, including Veterans Affairs, in modeling the number of doctors of chiropractic that will best meet the needs of patients with chronic low back pain.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Interprofessional Attitudes and Interdisciplinary Practices for Older Adults With Back Pain Among Doctors of Chiropractic: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on attitudes of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) toward integrative medicine and their self-reported interdisciplinary practices for older adults with back pain. METHODS: This descriptive survey was conducted with licensed DCs in a Midwestern community in the United States. Respondents completed a 53-item postal survey of demographics, practice characteristics, referral and co-management patterns, attitudes toward interdisciplinary practice, and the Integrative Medicine-30 Questionnaire (IM-30). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven DCs completed the survey (29% response). Geriatric-focused chiropractic practices were uncommon (<15%), although 56% reported that 25% to 49% of the patients treated each week were older adults. Respondents had a moderate orientation toward collaboration with other health care providers (IM-30 mean [standard deviation] 61.3 [11.5]). The IM-30 subscales placed DCs high on measures of integrative medicine safety; moderate on patient-centeredness, openness to working with other providers, and referral readiness; and low on learning from alternative paradigms. Doctors of chiropractic most referred older patients to neurologists, family physicians, massage therapists, orthopedists, and other chiropractors. Doctors of chiropractic reported the highest levels of co-management with family physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists. Most DCs (92%) were confident in their own ability to manage back pain in older adults, with modest confidence expressed for treatments from professionals using manual therapies. Most (77%) responded that older patients would experience the most improvement if DCs collaborated with another chiropractor, rather than with medical professionals. CONCLUSION: Doctors of chiropractic in one geographic community are moderately oriented toward interprofessional practice with other health care providers for older adults with back pain. Follow-up studies in representative national and international samples are recommended.

Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical decision aid for chiropractic management of common conditions causing low back pain (LBP) in veterans receiving treatment in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities. METHODS: A consensus study using an online, modified Delphi technique and Research Electronic Data Capture web application was conducted among VA doctors of chiropractic. Investigators reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of nonsurgical, neuromusculoskeletal LBP. Thirty seed statements summarizing evidence for chiropractic management, a graphical stepped management tool outlining diagnosis-informed treatment approaches, and support materials were then reviewed by an expert advisory committee. Email notifications invited 113 VA chiropractic clinicians to participate as Delphi panelists. Panelists rated the appropriateness of the seed statements and the stepped process on a 1-to-9 scale using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles methodology. Statements were accepted when both the median rating and 80% of all ratings occurred within the highly appropriate range. RESULTS: Thirty-nine panelists (74% male) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 46 (11) years and clinical experience of 17 (11) years participated in the study. Accepted statements addressed included (1) essential components of chiropractic care, (2) treatments for conditions causing or contributing to LBP, (3) spinal manipulation mechanisms, (4) descriptions and mechanisms of commonly used chiropractic interventions, and (5) a graphical stepped clinical management tool. CONCLUSION: This study group produced a chiropractic clinical decision aid for LBP management, which can be used to support evidence-based care decisions for veterans with LBP.

Stakeholder expectations from the integration of chiropractic care into a rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated patient and provider expectations of chiropractic care, particularly in multidisciplinary settings. This qualitative study explored stakeholder expectations of adding a chiropractor to the healthcare team at a rehabilitation specialty hospital. METHODS: The research methodology was an organizational case study with an inpatient facility for persons recovering from complex neurological conditions serving as the setting. Sixty stakeholders, including patients, families, hospital staff, and administrators, were interviewed or participated in focus groups in June 2015. Semi-structured questions guided the interview sessions which were digitally audiorecorded and transcribed. Data were entered into a qualitative software program to conduct content analysis using an iterative approach to identify key themes. RESULTS: Expectations for the chiropractic program were mostly positive with themes consistently reported across stakeholder groups. The central domain, making progress, encompassed the organizational mission to empower patients to reach hospital discharge and return to life in the community. Higher order goals, characterized as achieving whole person healing, encompassed patients' quality of life, self-efficacy, and activities of daily living. Stakeholders expected the addition of chiropractic to help patients progress toward these goals by improving pain management and physical functioning. Pain management themes included pain intensity, medication use, and pain-related behaviors, while functional improvement themes included muscle tone, extremity function, and balance and mobility. In addition to these direct effects on clinical outcomes, stakeholders also expected indirect effects of chiropractic care on healthcare integration. This indirect effect was expected to increase patient participation in other providers' treatments leading to improved care for the patient across the team and facility-level outcomes such as decreased length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders expected the addition of chiropractic care to a rehabilitation specialty hospital to benefit patients through pain management and functional improvements leading to whole person healing. They also expected chiropractic to benefit the healthcare team by facilitating other therapies in pursuit of the hospital mission, that is, moving patients towards discharge. Understanding stakeholder expectations may allow providers to align current expectations with what may be reasonable, in an effort to achieve appropriate clinical outcomes and patient and staff satisfaction.

Integration of Doctors of Chiropractic Into Private Sector Health Care Facilities in the United States: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic, facility, and practice characteristics of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) working in private sector health care settings in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using a purposive sample of DCs (n = 50) working in integrated health care facilities. The 36-item survey collected demographic, facility, chiropractic, and interdisciplinary practice characteristics, which were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate was 76% (n = 38). Most respondents were men and mid-career professionals with a mean 21 years of experience in chiropractic. Doctors of chiropractic reported working in hospitals (40%), multispecialty offices (21%), ambulatory clinics (16%), or other (21%) health care settings. Most (68%) were employees and received salary compensation (59%). The median number of DCs per setting was 2 (range 1-8). Most DCs used the same health record as medical staff and worked in the same clinical setting. More than 60% reported co-management of patients with medical professionals. Integrated DCs most often received and made referrals to primary care, physical medicine, pain medicine, orthopedics, and physical or occupational therapy. Although in many facilities the DCs were exclusive providers of spinal manipulation (43%), in most, manipulative therapies also were delivered by physical therapists and osteopathic or medical physicians. Informal face-to-face consultations and shared health records were the most common communication methods. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors of chiropractic are working in diverse medical settings within the private sector, in close proximity and collaboration with many provider types, suggesting a diverse role for chiropractors within conventional health care facilities.

Chiropractic Integrated Care Pathway for Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an integrated care pathway for doctors of chiropractic, primary care providers, and mental health professionals who manage veterans with low back pain, with or without mental health comorbidity, within Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. METHODS: The research method used was a consensus process. A multidisciplinary investigative team reviewed clinical guidelines and Veterans Affairs pain and mental health initiatives to develop seed statements and care algorithms to guide chiropractic management and collaborative care of veterans with low back pain. A 5-member advisory committee approved initial recommendations. Veterans Affairs-based panelists (n = 58) evaluated the pathway via e-mail using a modified RAND/UCLA methodology. Consensus was defined as agreement by 80% of panelists. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process was conducted in July to December 2016. Most (93%) seed statements achieved consensus during the first round, with all statements reaching consensus after 2 rounds. The final care pathway addressed the topics of informed consent, clinical evaluation including history and examination, screening for red flags, documentation, diagnostic imaging, patient-reported outcomes, adverse event reporting, chiropractic treatment frequency and duration standards, tailored approaches to chiropractic care in veteran populations, and clinical presentation of common mental health conditions. Care algorithms outlined chiropractic case management and interprofessional collaboration and referrals between doctors of chiropractic and primary care and mental health providers. CONCLUSION: This study offers an integrative care pathway that includes chiropractic care for veterans with low back pain.

Patient-centered professional practice models for managing low back pain in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a debilitating condition for older adults, who may seek healthcare from multiple providers. Few studies have evaluated impacts of different healthcare delivery models on back pain outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of older adults receiving back pain treatment under 3 professional practice models that included primary medical care with or without chiropractic care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with 131 community-dwelling, ambulatory older adults with subacute or chronic low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of individualized primary medical care (Medical Care), concurrent medical and chiropractic care (Dual Care), or medical and chiropractic care with enhanced interprofessional collaboration (Shared Care). Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity rated on the numerical rating scale and back-related disability measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects regression models and general estimating equations. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, participants in all three treatment groups reported improvements in mean average low back pain intensity [Shared Care: 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.6; Dual Care: 3.0; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.8; Medical Care: 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2)] and back-related disability (Shared Care: 2.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 4.0; Dual Care: 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7; Medical Care: 1.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8). No statistically significant differences were noted between the three groups on the primary measures. Participants in both models that included chiropractic reported significantly better perceived low back pain improvement, overall health and quality of life, and greater satisfaction with healthcare services than patients who received medical care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Professional practice models that included primary care and chiropractic care led to modest improvements in low back pain intensity and disability for older adults, with chiropractic-inclusive models resulting in better perceived improvement and patient satisfaction over the primary care model alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01312233 , 4 March 2011.

Effect of Spinal Manipulation of Upper Cervical Vertebrae on Blood Pressure: Results of a Pilot Sham-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot sham-controlled clinical trial was to estimate the treatment effect and safety of toggle recoil spinal manipulation for blood pressure management. METHODS: Fifty-one participants with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension (systolic blood pressure ranging from 135 to 159 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ranging from 85 to 99 mm Hg) were allocated by an adaptive design to 2 treatments: toggle recoil spinal manipulation or a sham procedure. Participants were seen by a doctor of chiropractic twice weekly for 6 weeks and remained on their antihypertensive medications, as prescribed, throughout the trial. Blood pressure was assessed at baseline and after study visits 1, 6 (week 3), and 12 (week 6), with the primary end point at week 6. Analysis of covariance was used to compare mean blood pressure changes from baseline between groups at each end point, controlling for sex, age, body mass index, and baseline blood pressure. RESULTS: Adjusted mean change from baseline to week 6 was greater in the sham group (systolic, -4.2 mm Hg; diastolic, -1.6 mm Hg) than in the spinal manipulation group (systolic, 0.6 mm Hg; diastolic, 0.7 mm Hg), but the difference was not statistically significant. No serious and few adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Six weeks of toggle recoil spinal manipulation did not lower systolic or diastolic blood pressure when compared with a sham procedure. No serious adverse events from either treatment were reported. Our results do not support a larger clinical trial. Further research to understand the potential mechanisms of action involving upper cervical manipulation on blood pressure is warranted before additional clinical investigations are conducted.

Resilient responses to stressful events among chiropractic students: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: Resilient students may better navigate the challenges of chiropractic training. This study explored the relationships between response to stressful experiences, perceived stress, and quality of life among students at 1 US chiropractic college campus. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 873 students. The anonymous online questionnaire included demographics, quality of life, perceived stress, and the Response to Stressful Events Scale (RSES). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses assessed for significant relationships among variables. RESULTS: A sample of 221 students (60% female) completed the survey (25% response rate). Male respondents reported greater psychological health. Participants reporting high quality of life exhibited higher resiliency on the RSES flat score and many RSES domains. Respondents who rated greater psychological health and social relationships exhibited greater spiritual resiliency. Respondents reporting higher psychological health and lower levels of perceived stress exhibited higher self-efficacy resilience. Psychological health was the most important predictor for RSES flat score and domains, except for spiritual resilience, for which social relationships were most important. Male gender was predictive of 3 RSES domains: meaning making, active coping, and cognitive flexibility. CONCLUSION: More resilient responses to stressful events were reported by male chiropractic students and those who reported greater psychological health, higher quality of life, or lower perceived stress. Female students and those experiencing psychological challenges or lower quality of life might consider resilience training to increase the use of protective coping strategies. These findings may permit academic institutions to identify students at highest risk and employ interventions to prevent program withdrawal.

The World Federation of Chiropractic Global Patient Safety Task Force: a call to action.

BACKGROUND: The Global Patient Safety Action Plan, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO), draws attention to patient safety as being an issue of utmost importance in healthcare. In response, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) has established a Global Patient Safety Task Force to advance a patient safety culture across all facets of the chiropractic profession. This commentary aims to introduce principles and call upon the chiropractic profession to actively engage with the Global Patient Safety Action Plan beginning immediately and over the coming decade. MAIN TEXT: This commentary addresses why the chiropractic profession should pay attention to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan, and what actions the chiropractic profession should take to advance these objectives. Each strategic objective identified by WHO serves as a focal point for reflection and action. Objective 1 emphasizes the need to view each clinical interaction as a chance to improve patient safety through learning. Objective 2 urges the implementation of frameworks that dismantle systemic obstacles, minimizing human errors and strengthening patient safety procedures. Objective 3 supports the optimization of clinical process safety. Objective 4 recognizes the need for patient and family engagement. Objective 5 describes the need for integrated patient safety competencies in training programs. Objective 6 explains the need for foundational data infrastructure, ecosystem, and culture. Objective 7 emphasizes that patient safety is optimized when healthcare professionals cultivate synergy and partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The WFC Global Patient Safety Task Force provides a structured framework for aligning essential considerations for patient safety in chiropractic care with WHO strategic objectives. Embracing the prescribed action steps offers a roadmap for the chiropractic profession to nurture an inclusive and dedicated culture, placing patient safety at its core. This commentary advocates for a concerted effort within the chiropractic community to commit to and implement these principles for the collective advancement of patient safety.

A scoping review to identify barriers and facilitators of research participation among chiropractic faculty.

OBJECTIVE: To describe peer-reviewed literature on chiropractic faculty participation in research and identify important barriers and facilitators. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using comprehensive searches of relevant databases from inception through November 2022. English language publications of any design were included, with search terms consisting of subject headings specific to each database and free text words related to chiropractic, faculty, and research. Primary and secondary reviewer teams performed article screening and data abstraction using Covidence software, with primary reviewers responsible for consensus. Data were entered into evidence tables and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 330 articles were screened, with 14 deemed eligible including 8 cross-sectional/correlational studies and 6 narrative reviews/editorials. Article publication dates ranged from 1987 to 2017. No intervention studies were identified. Facilitators of chiropractic faculty research included research assignment as primary role, institutional culture promoting research, and dedicated release time. Barriers included teaching/clinic assignments, lack of incentives and mentorship, and teaching load. Qualitative results identified 5 domains impacting faculty research: demographics/professional roles; personal empowerment; research culture; institutional setting/policies; and research training. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review found a paucity of recently published articles on chiropractic faculty participation in research. Educational institutions building research capacity among chiropractic faculty must establish cultural environments where scholarship is expected, rewarded, and valued. Tangible support, such as research policies, resources, and space, advanced training, funding, and release time, must be available. Faculty are encouraged to build upon key facilitators, evaluate interventions to address barriers to chiropractic faculty research, and publish their results.

Development of Preliminary Integrated Health Care Clinical Competencies for United States Doctor of Chiropractic Programs: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Background: There has been rapid growth of chiropractors pursuing career opportunities in both public and private hospitals and other integrated care settings. Chiropractors that prosper in integrated care settings deliver patient-centered care, focus on the institutional mission, understand and adhere to organizational rules, and are proficient in navigating complex systems. The Council on Chiropractic Education Accreditation Standards do not outline specific meta-competencies for integrated care clinical training. Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop preliminary integrated health care competencies for DC programs to guide the advancement of clinical chiropractic education. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed. Articles were screened for eligibility and extracted in duplicate. Domains and seed statements were generated from this literature, piloted at a conference workshop, and evaluated via a modified Delphi consensus process. Of 42 invited, 36 chiropractors participated as panelists. Public comment period yielded 20 comments, none resulting in substantive changes to the competencies. Results: Of 1718 citations, 23 articles met eligibility criteria. After 2 modified Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on all competency statements. A total of 78 competency statements were agreed upon, which encompassed 4 domains and 11 subdomains. The 4 domains were: 1) Collaboration, (2) Clinical Excellence, (3) Communication, and (4) Systems Administration. Conclusion: We identified 78 preliminary competencies appropriate for preparing DC students and early career chiropractors for clinical practice in integrated healthcare settings. Educational programs may consider these competencies for curricular design and reform to strengthen DC program graduates for integrated practice, advanced training, and employment.

Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: While older adults may seek care for low back pain (LBP) from both medical doctors (MDs) and doctors of chiropractic (DCs), co-management between these providers is uncommon. The purposes of this study were to describe the preferences of older adults for LBP co-management by MDs and DCs and to identify their concerns for receiving care under such a treatment model. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups with 48 older adults who received LBP care in the past year. Interviews explored participants' care seeking experiences, co-management preferences, and perceived challenges to successful implementation of a MD-DC co-management model. We analyzed the qualitative data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Older adults considered LBP co-management by MDs and DCs a positive approach as the professions have complementary strengths. Participants wanted providers who worked in a co-management model to talk openly and honestly about LBP, offer clear and consistent recommendations about treatment, and provide individualized care. Facilitators of MD-DC co-management included collegial relationships between providers, arrangements between doctors to support interdisciplinary referral, computer systems that allowed exchange of health information between clinics, and practice settings where providers worked in one location. Perceived barriers to the co-management of LBP included the financial costs associated with receiving care from multiple providers concurrently, duplication of tests or imaging, scheduling and transportation problems, and potential side effects of medication and chiropractic care. A few participants expressed concern that some providers would not support a patient-preferred co-managed care model. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in receiving LBP treatment co-managed by MDs and DCs. Older adults considered patient-centered communication, collegial interdisciplinary interactions between these providers, and administrative supports such as scheduling systems and health record sharing as key components for successful LBP co-management.

Adverse childhood experiences and trauma informed care for chiropractors: a call to awareness and action.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is an emotional response to distressing events where coping and subsequent recovery are absent. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are traumas, occurring before the age of 18 years, such as child abuse or neglect, caregiver instability, and household dysfunction. Sixty-four percent of the U.S. population report experiencing at least one ACE, with over 1 billion children experiencing abuse and neglect annually worldwide. Chronic exposure to stressful circumstances or multiple traumatic events has negative physiologic impacts. Persons who experience 3 or more ACEs in childhood are at greater risk of poor mental health outcomes and may be more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors, predisposing them to long-term health impacts, such as metabolic diseases, anxiety, depression, substance use, and chronic pain. Trauma informed care (TIC) is a recommended approach to healthcare delivery across professions, especially when a trauma history is suspected. This commentary aims to increase awareness of the impact of ACEs on health outcomes and introduce TIC concepts as they may apply to chiropractic care for adults with a history of ACEs. DISCUSSION: This commentary reviews an introductory model (4R's: realize, recognize, respond, resist re-traumatization) as one TIC framework used by healthcare practitioners. Prior trauma can lessen trust, alter perceptions of physical touch, and hands-on examinations and chiropractic treatments may trigger stress responses. Using TIC after appropriate training, includes referrals to multidisciplinary providers to address trauma-related concerns outside the scope of chiropractic, and screening for ACEs if deemed appropriate. Creating safe spaces, communicating clearly, avoiding victimizing language, explaining procedures, asking for consent before physical contact, and giving patients choice and control in their own care may avoid triggering prior traumas. CONCLUSION: Given the high worldwide prevalence of persons experiencing 3 or more ACEs, TIC principles are practical adaptations to chiropractic care for use with many patient populations. As TIC and ACEs are emerging concepts within chiropractic, students and practitioners are encouraged to undertake additional training to better understand these complex and sensitive topics. Exploratory research on the incidence, presentation, and impacts of various trauma types, including ACEs, to support adoption of TIC in chiropractic settings is essential.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on nonpharmacological pain management trials in military and veteran healthcare settings: an evaluation informed by implementation science.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and clinical research, including a suite of 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), across clinics within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). These PCTs were designed to evaluate an array of nonpharmacological treatments and models of care for treatment of patients with pain and co-occurring conditions. The aims of the study are to (a) describe modifications to PCTs and interventions to address the evolving pandemic and (b) describe the application of implementation science methods for evaluation of those PCT modifications. The project used a two-phase, sequential, mixed-methods design. In Phase I, we captured PCT disruptions and modifications via a Research Electronic Data Capture questionnaire, using Periodic Reflections methods as a guide. In Phase II, we utilized the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) taxonomy to develop a focus group interview guide and checklist that would provide more in-depth data than Phase I. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Phase I revealed that all PCTs made between two and six trial modifications. Phase II, FRAME-guided analyses showed that the key goals for modifying interventions were increasing treatment feasibility and decreasing patient exposure to COVID-19, while preserving intervention core elements. Context (format) modifications led eight PCTs to modify parts of the interventions for virtual delivery. Content modifications added elements to enhance patient safety; tailored interventions for virtual delivery (counseling, exercise, mindfulness); and modified interventions involving manual therapies. Implementation science methods identified near-real-time disruptions and modifications to PCTs focused on pain management in veteran and military healthcare settings.

Active-duty personnel and veterans often report pain and seek treatment in military and veteran healthcare settings. Nondrug treatments, such as self-care, counseling, exercise, and manual therapy, are recommended for most patients with chronic pain. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical trials of these nondrug treatments in military and veteran populations. In this study, we explored how 11 research teams adapted study trials on pain to address COVID-19. Team members completed online questions, brief checklists, and a one-time focus group about how they modified their trials. Each of the 11 trials made 2 to 6 changes to their studies. Most paused or delayed recruitment efforts. Many shifted parts of the study to a virtual format. Goals for adapting treatments included improved feasibility and decreased patient exposure to COVID-19. Context or format changes increased virtual delivery of study treatments. Content changes focused on patient safety, tailoring treatments for virtual delivery, and offering varied manual therapies. Provider concerns about technology and patient willingness to seek in-person care during the pandemic also were factors driving changes. These findings may support the increased use of virtual care for pain management in military and veteran health settings.