Best Practices for Chiropractic Management of Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Objective: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) through a broad-based consensus process on best practices for chiropractic management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. Design: CPG based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of experts in chronic MSK pain management. Methods: Using systematic reviews identified in an initial literature search, a steering committee of experts in research and management of patients with chronic MSK pain drafted a set of recommendations. Additional supportive literature was identified to supplement gaps in the evidence base. A multidisciplinary panel of experienced practitioners and educators rated the recommendations through a formal Delphi consensus process using the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles, methodology. Results: The Delphi process was conducted January-February 2020. The 62-member Delphi panel reached consensus on chiropractic management of five common chronic MSK pain conditions: low-back pain (LBP), neck pain, tension headache, osteoarthritis (knee and hip), and fibromyalgia. Recommendations were made for nonpharmacological treatments, including acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilization, and other manual therapy; modalities such as low-level laser and interferential current; exercise, including yoga; mind-body interventions, including mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavior therapy; and lifestyle modifications such as diet and tobacco cessation. Recommendations covered many aspects of the clinical encounter, from informed consent through diagnosis, assessment, treatment planning and implementation, and concurrent management and referral. Appropriate referral and comanagement were emphasized. Conclusions: These evidence-based recommendations for a variety of conservative treatment approaches to the management of common chronic MSK pain conditions may advance consistency of care, foster collaboration between provider groups, and thereby improve patient outcomes.

Convergent Points for Conventional Medicine and Whole Systems Research: A User's Guide.

CONTEXT: Value-based health care has emerged as a manifestation of the conventional medicine community's awareness of the overlapping needs to both better incorporate patient centeredness into practice and research paradigms and further develop a systemic approach to cost reduction. BACKGROUND: The origins of the whole systems research (WSR) movement date to the late 1990s, when the U.S. Congress legislated appropriation of funds to stimulate the U.S. National Institutes of Health to evaluate popular traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) practices. Questions immediately arose over how well these forms of practice could be measured through standard randomized controlled trials, and the WSR community began to articulate and adapt innovative methodologies for evaluating TCIM interventions. DISCUSSION: This column explores the potential impact of WSR methods and exemplars on the clinical practice and research communities seeking to successfully implement and measure the complexities of value-based health care. Four potentially cross-talking themes are specifically discussed: complex behaviorally focused interventions, patient-centered outcomes, team-based care, and resilience and well-being. CONCLUSION: The time is ripe for clinicians and investigators to capitalize on methodologies, exemplars, and learnings from the WSR literature toward improving care, developing more robust research strategies, and furthering the dialogue between the TCIM and conventional medicine communities.

Whole Systems Research Methods in Health Care: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: This scoping review evaluates two decades of methodological advances made by "whole systems research" (WSR) pioneers in the fields of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM). Rooted in critiques of the classical randomized controlled trial (RCT)'s suitability for evaluating holistic, complex TCIM interventions, WSR centralizes the principle of "model validity," representing a "fit" between research design and therapeutic paradigm. DESIGN: In consultation with field experts, 41 clinical research exemplars were selected for review from across 13 TCIM disciplines, with the aim of mapping the range and methodological characteristics of WSR studies. Using an analytic charting approach, these studies' primary and secondary features are characterized with reference to three focal areas: research method, intervention design, and outcome assessment. RESULTS: The reviewed WSR exemplars investigate a wide range of multimodal and multicomponent TCIM interventions, typified by wellness-geared, multitarget, and multimorbid therapeutic aims. Most studies include a behavioral focus, at times in multidisciplinary or team-based contexts. Treatments are variously individualized, often with reference to "dual" (biomedical and paradigm-specific) diagnoses. Prospective and retrospective study designs substantially reflect established biomedical research methods. Pragmatic, randomized, open label comparative effectiveness designs with "usual care" comparators are most widely used, at times with factorial treatment arms. Only two studies adopt a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT format. Some cohort-based controlled trials engage nonrandomized allocation strategies (e.g., matched controls, preference-based assignment, and minimization); other key designs include single-cohort pre-post studies, modified n-of-1 series, case series, case report, and ethnography. Mixed methods designs (i.e., qualitative research and economic evaluations) are evident in about one-third of exemplars. Primary and secondary outcomes are predominantly assessed, at multiple intervals, through patient-reported measures for symptom severity, quality of life/wellness, and/or treatment satisfaction; some studies concurrently evaluate objective outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Aligned with trends emphasizing "fit-for-purpose" research designs to study the "real-world" effectiveness of complex, personalized clinical interventions, WSR has emerged as a maturing scholarly discipline. The field is distinguished by its patient-centered salutogenic focus and engagement with nonbiomedical diagnostic and treatment frameworks. The rigorous pursuit of model validity may be further advanced by emphasizing complex analytic models, paradigm-specific outcome assessment, inter-rater reliability, and ethnographically informed designs. Policy makers and funders seeking to support best practices in TCIM research may refer to this review as a key resource.