Building Bridges Toward Common Goals - A Call for Greater Collaboration Between Public Health and Integrative, Complementary and Traditional Health Providers.

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.

Incorporating Complementary and Integrative Health Providers in the Public Health Pandemic Response: Lessons from COVID-19 and Recommendations for the Future from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

Complementary and integrative health (CIH) providers, such as chiropractors and naturopathic doctors, have been an underutilized public health asset in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article seeks to inform how they can be better integrated into future responses to public health emergencies. The authors convened an expert panel of ten CIH and public health practitioners and researchers for a daylong discussion of how the CIH workforce could be better mobilized during future crises. In this article, the authors summarize the key barriers identified in the discussion and make recommendations on how they can be overcome.

Health-Related Quality of Life Among United States Service Members with Low Back Pain Receiving Usual Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Care Alone: Secondary Outcomes of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: 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). DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC). SETTING: Three military treatment facilities. SUBJECTS: 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. METHODS: Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Barriers to the Engagement of Complementary and Integrative Health Providers in Public Health Responses to COVID-19: Recommendations From a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to explore barriers to the involvement of complementary and integrative health (CIH) providers in the public health response to COVID-19 and potential solutions for future involvement in public health crises. METHODS: An expert panel of 10 people, which included doctors of chiropractic, naturopathic doctors, public health practitioners, and researchers from the United States, was convened for a day-long online panel discussion. Facilitators asked panelists how CIH practitioners could contribute and be mobilized. We summarized themes and recommendations from the discussion. RESULTS: Despite their skills and resources, few CIH providers participated in public health efforts like testing and contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Panelists described that CIH professionals may not have participated in those efforts due to the CIH providers possibly not having sufficient public health training and limited contact with public health professionals, as well as policy and financial challenges during the pandemic. Panelists proposed solutions to these barriers, including more public health training, stronger formal relationships between CIH and public health organizations, and improved financial support for both CIH care and public health efforts. CONCLUSION: Through an expert panel discussion, we identified barriers that hindered the involvement of CIH providers in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During future pandemics in the United States, public health planners should recognize CIH providers as part of the existing labor resource, with clinical expertise and community-level connections that can be called upon in a crisis. During future events, CIH professional leaders should be more proactive in seeking out a supportive role and sharing their knowledge, skills, and expertise.

Income as a Predictor of Self-Efficacy for Managing Pain and for Coping With Symptoms Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain self-efficacy (PSE) and coping self-efficacy (CSE) for people with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and to assess whether lower income may be associated with less PSE and CSE in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using survey data collected between June 2016 and February 2017 from n = 1364 patients with CLBP from chiropractic clinics in the United States to measure the relationship between income and both types of self-efficacy. We created 4 multivariate models predicting PSE and CSE scores. We used both a parsimonious set of covariates (age, sex) and a full set (age, sex, education, neck pain comorbidity, catastrophizing, and insurance). We also calculated effect sizes (Cohen's d) for unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE score by income. RESULTS: Lower income was associated with lower PSE and CSE scores across all 4 models. In the full models, the highest-income group had an average of 1 point (1-10 scale) higher PSE score and CSE score compared to the lowest income group. Effect sizes for the unadjusted differences in PSE and CSE scores between the highest and lowest income groups were 0.94 and 0.84, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that people with lower income perceive themselves as less able to manage their pain, and that this relationship exists even after taking into account factors like health insurance and educational attainment. There is a need to further investigate how practitioners and policymakers can best support low-income patients with chronic pain.

Measuring the Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Chronic Low Back and Chronic Neck Pain in Chiropractic Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) applied to chiropractic manipulation for patients with chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). OBJECTIVE: Determine the rate of appropriate care provided by US chiropractors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal manipulation has been shown effective for CLBP and CNP but may not be appropriate for all patients with these conditions. METHODS: Ratings of the appropriateness of spinal and cervical manipulation previously developed by two RUAM expert panels were applied to data abstracted from random samples of patient charts from chiropractors in six US regions to determine the appropriateness of manipulation for each patient. RESULTS: Of 125 chiropractors sampled, 89 provided charts that could be abstracted. Of the 2128 charts received, 1054 were abstracted. Charts received but not abstracted included 460 that were unusable (e.g., illegible), and 555 did not have CLBP or CNP. Across the abstracted charts 72% had CLBP, 57% had CNP, and 29% had both; 84% of patients with CLBP and 86% with CNP received manipulation. Patients with CLBP who had minor neurologic findings, sciatic nerve irritation, or no joint dysfunction were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Patients with CNP who had substantial trauma etiology, no joint dysfunction, or no radiographs were significantly less likely to receive manipulation. Most manipulation for CLBP (64%) was appropriate and most manipulation for CNP (93%) was for patients where appropriateness was uncertain or equivocal. The proportions of patients receiving inappropriate manipulation for either condition were low (1%-3%) as were the numbers of patients presenting to these chiropractors for which manipulation was inappropriate. CONCLUSION: Chiropractors in this US sample tend to provide manipulation to very few patients with CLBP or CNP for which it is inappropriate. However, more research is needed to determine which patients with CNP benefit from manipulation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria. METHODS: We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions. RESULTS: Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

Visit Frequency and Outcomes for Patients Using Ongoing Chiropractic Care for Chronic Low-Back and Neck Pain: An Observational Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent and long-lasting. Although provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies, such as chiropractic care, have been recommended, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding long-term use of this care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between visit frequency and outcomes for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: Observational 3-month longitudinal study. SETTING: Data collected from patients of 124 chiropractic clinics in 6 United States regions. METHODS: We examined the impact of visit frequency and patient characteristics on pain (pain 0-10 numeric rating scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] for low-back pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI] for neck pain, both 0-100 scale) using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in a large national sample of chiropractic patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or chronic neck pain (CNP). This study was approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee and registered under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03162952. RESULTS: One thousand, three hundred, sixty-two patients with CLBP and 1,214 with CNP were included in a series of HLM models. Unconditional (time-only) models showed patients on average had mild pain and function, and significant, but slight improvements in these over the 3-month observation period: back and neck pain decreased by 0.40 and 0.44 points, respectively; function improved by 2.7 (ODI) and 3.0 points (NDI) (all P < 0.001). Adding chiropractic visit frequency to the models revealed that those with worse baseline pain and function used more visits, but only visits more than once per week for those with CLBP were associated with significantly better improvement. These relationships remained when other types of visits and baseline patient characteristics were included. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study based on self-reported data from a sample representative of chiropractic patients, but not all patients with CLBP or CNP. CONCLUSIONS: This 3-month window on chiropractic patients with CLBP and/or CNP revealed that they were improving, although slowly; may have reached maximum therapeutic improvement; and are possibly successfully managing their chronic pain using a variety of chiropractic visit frequencies. These results may inform payers when building coverage policies for ongoing chiropractic care for patients with chronic pain.

Chiropractic Services and Diagnoses for Low Back Pain in 3 U.S. Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities: A Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnoses and chiropractic services performed by doctors of chiropractic operating within 3 military treatment facilities for patients with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a descriptive secondary analysis of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) plus chiropractic care to UMC alone for U.S. active-duty military personnel with LBP. Participants who were allocated to receive UMC plus 6 weeks of chiropractic care and who attended at least 1 chiropractic visit (n = 350; 1547 unique visits) were included in this analysis. International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes were transcribed from chiropractic treatment paper forms. The number of participants receiving each diagnosis and service and the number of each service on unique visits was tabulated. Low back pain and co-occurring diagnoses were grouped into neuropathic, nociceptive, bone and/or joint, general pain, and nonallopathic lesions categories. Services were categorized as evaluation, active interventions, and passive interventions. RESULTS: The most reported pain diagnoses were lumbalgia (66.1%) and thoracic pain (6.6%). Most reported neuropathic pain diagnoses were sciatica (4.9%) and lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis (2.9%). For the nociceptive pain, low back sprain and/or strain (15.8%) and lumbar facet syndrome (9.2%) were most common. Most reported diagnoses in the bone and/or joint category were intervertebral disc degeneration (8.6%) and spondylosis (6.0%). Tobacco use disorder (5.7%) was the most common in the other category. Chiropractic care was compromised of passive interventions (94%), with spinal manipulative therapy being the most common, active interventions (77%), with therapeutic exercise being most common, and a combination of passive and active interventions (72%). CONCLUSION: For the sample in this study, doctors of chiropractic within 3 military treatment facilities diagnosed, managed, and provided clinical evaluations for a range of LBP conditions. Although spinal manipulation was the most commonly used modality, chiropractic care included a multimodal approach, comprising of both active and passive interventions a majority of the time.

Comparing the Recruitment of Research Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain Using Amazon Mechanical Turk With the Recruitment of Patients From Chiropractic Clinics: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Compared 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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.

Experiences With Chiropractic Care for Patients With Low Back or Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders are the second leading cause of disability worldwide. OBJECTIVE: Examine experiences of chiropractic patients in the United States with chronic low back or neck pain. METHOD: Observational 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. RESULTS: We 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). CONCLUSIONS: The positive experiences of patients with chronic back and neck pain are supportive of their use of chiropractic care.

Predictors of visit frequency for patients using ongoing chiropractic care for chronic low back and chronic neck pain; analysis of observational data.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is prevalent, expensive and long-lasting. Several provider-based nonpharmacologic therapies have now been recommended for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). However, healthcare and coverage policies provide little guidance or evidence regarding the long-term use of this care. To provide one glimpse into the long-term use of nonpharmacologic provider-based care, this study examines the predictors of visit frequency in a large sample of patients with CLBP and CNP using ongoing chiropractic care. METHODS: Observational data were collected from a large national sample of chiropractic patients in the US with non-specific CLBP and CNP. Visit frequency was defined as average number of chiropractic visits per month over the 3-month study period. Potential baseline predictor variables were entered into two sets of multi-level models according to a defined causal theory-in this case, Anderson's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use. RESULTS: Our sample included 852 patients with CLBP and 705 with CNP. Visit frequency varied significantly by chiropractor/clinic, so our models controlled for this clustering. Patients with either condition used an average of 2.3 visits per month. In the final models visit frequency increased (0.44 visits per month, p = .008) for those with CLBP and some coverage for chiropractic, but coverage had little effect on visits for patients with CNP. Patients with worse function or just starting care also had more visits and those near to ending care had fewer visits. However, visit frequency was also determined by the chiropractor/clinic where treatment was received. Chiropractors who reported seeing more patients per day also had patients with higher visit frequency, and the patients of chiropractors with 20 to 30 years of experience had fewer visits per month. In addition, after controlling for both patient and chiropractor characteristics, the state in which care was received made a difference, likely through state-level policies and regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic patients with CLBP and CNP use a range of visit frequencies for their ongoing care. The predictors of these frequencies could be useful for understanding and developing policies for ongoing provider-based care.

Coping and Management Techniques Used by Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Receiving Treatment From Chiropractors.

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.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Chronic Spinal Pain Patients with Different Hopes (Treatment Goals) for Ongoing Chiropractic Care.

Objectives: The treatment goals of patients successfully using ongoing provider-based care for chronic spinal pain can help inform health policy related to this care. Design: Multinomial logistical hierarchical linear models were used to examine the characteristics of patients with different treatment goals for their ongoing care. Settings/Location: Observational data from a large national sample of patients from 125 chiropractic clinics clustered in 6 U.S. regions. Subjects: Patients with nonwork-injury-related nonspecific chronic low-back pain (CLBP) and chronic neck pain (CNP). Interventions: All were receiving ongoing chiropractic care. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes were patient endorsement of one of four goals for their treatment. Explanatory variables included pain characteristics, pain beliefs, goals for mobility/flexibility, demographics, and other psychological variables. Results: Across our sample of 1614 patients (885 with CLBP and 729 with CNP) just under one-third endorsed a treatment goal of having their pain go away permanently (cure). The rest had goals of preventing their pain from coming back (22% CLBP, 16% CNP); preventing their pain from getting worse (14% CLBP, 12% CNP); or temporarily relieving their pain (31% CLBP, 41% CNP). In univariate analysis across these goals, patients differed significantly on almost all variables. In the multinomial logistic models, a goal of cure was associated with shorter pain duration and more belief in a medical cure; a goal of preventing pain from coming back was associated with lower pain levels; and those with goals of preventing their pain from getting worse or temporarily relieving pain were similar, including in having their pain longer. Conclusions: Although much of health policy follows a curative model, the majority of these CLBP and CNP patients have goals of pain management (using ongoing care) rather than "cure" (care with a specific end) for their chiropractic care. This information could be useful in crafting policy for patients facing provider-based nonpharmacologic care for chronic pain.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 3: Designing Instruments With Patient Input.

OBJECTIVES: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Questionnaires 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. CONCLUSIONS: This article documents the challenges and the efforts involved in designing data collection tools to facilitate the inclusion of patient data into appropriateness decisions.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 5: Using Patient Records: Selection, Protection, and Abstraction.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to describe the 4-step process (consent, selection, protection, and abstraction) of acquiring a large sample of chiropractic patient records from multiple practices and subsequent data abstraction. METHODS: From April 2017 to December 2017, RAND acquired patient records from 99 chiropractic practices across the United States. The records included patients enrolled in a survey e-study (prospective sample) and a random sample of all clinic patients (retrospective sample) with chronic back or neck pain. Clinic staff were trained to collect the sample, scan, and transfer the records. We designed an online data collection tool for abstraction. Protocols were instituted to protect patient confidentiality. Doctors of chiropractic were selected and trained as abstractors, and a system was established to monitor data collection. RESULTS: In compliance with data protection protocols, 3603 patient records were scanned, including 1475 in the prospective sample and 2128 in the random sample. A total of 1716 patients (prospective sample) consented to having their records scanned, but only 1475 could be retrieved. Of records scanned, 19% were unusable owing to illegibility, no care during the period of interest, or poor scanning. The abstractor interrater reliability for appropriateness of care decisions was fair to moderate (κ .38-.48). CONCLUSION: The acquisition, handling, and abstraction of a large sample of chiropractic records was a complex task with challenges that necessitated adapting planned approaches. Of the records abstracted, many revealed incomplete provider documentation regarding the details of and rationale for care. Better documentation and more standardized record keeping would facilitate future research using patient records.

The research crisis in American institutions of complementary and integrative health: one proposed solution for chiropractic profession.

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.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 4: Putting Practice Back Into Evidence-based Practice by Recruiting Clinics and Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This paper focuses on the methods of a single study, incorporating data from chiropractic clinics into an evidenced-based investigation of the appropriateness of manipulation for chronic back pain. METHODS: A cluster sample of clinics (125) from 6 sites across the United States was chosen for this observation study. Patients with chronic low-back and neck pain were recruited using iPads, completed a series of online questionnaires, and gave permission for their patient records to be scanned. Patient records for a random sample were also obtained. The RAND staff and clinic personnel collected record data. RESULTS: We obtained survey data from 2024 patients with chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, or both. We obtained patient record data from 114 of 125 clinics. These included the records of 1475 of the individuals who had completed surveys (prospective sample), and a random sample of 2128 patients. Across 114 clinics, 22% of clinics had patient records that were fully electronic, 32% had paper files, and 46% used a combination. Of the 114 clinics, about 47% scanned the records themselves with training from RAND. We obtained a total of 3603 scanned records. The patient survey data were collected from June 2016 to February 2017, the provider surveys from June 2016 to March 2017, and the chart pull from April 2017 to December 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics can be successfully recruited for practice-based studies, and patients can be recruited using iPads. Obtaining patient records presents considerable challenges, and clinics varied in whether they had electronic files, nonelectronic records, or a mixture. Clinic staff can be trained to select and scan samples of charts to comply with randomization and data protection protocols in transferring records for research purposes.