Qualitative Assessment CIH Institutions' Engagement With Underserved Communities to Enhance Healthcare Access and Utilization.

Background: In North America, there is a notable underutilization of complementary and integrative health approaches (CIH) among non-White and marginalized communities. Objectives: This study sought to understand how CIH educational instutitions are proactively working to redress this disparity in access and utilization among these communities. Methods: We conducted interviews with 26 key informants, including presidents, clinicians, and research deans across 13 CIH educational institutions across the US and Canada. Thematic analysis included deductive codes based on the interview guide during interview scripts review. Results: Six themes were identified: (1) CIH institutions often had a long and varied history of community engaged care through partnerships to increase access and utilization; (2) CIH institutions' long-standing community outreach had been intentionally designed; (3) CIH institutions provided an array of services to a wide range of demographics and communities; (4) addressing healthcare access and utilization through community partnerships had a strong positive impact; (5) funding, staffing and COVID-19 were significant challenges that impeded efforts to increase CIH access through community engaged work; (6) identified gaps in community partnerships and services to increase access and utilization were recognized. Conclusion: These findings underscore significant efforts made to enhance healthcare access and utilization among marginalized, underserved, and racial and ethnic communities. However, barriers such as funding constraints, resource allocation, and the need for proper measurement and accountability hinder proactive initiatives aimed at redressing disparities in CIH utilization within these communities.

Predictors of Pain Management Strategies in Adults with Low-Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey Data.

Objective: To evaluate the associations between baseline demographics, health conditions, pain management strategies, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures with pain management strategies at 3-month follow-up in respondents reporting current low-back pain (LBP). Study design: Cohort study of survey data collected from adults with LBP sampled from Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing panel. Methods: Demographics, health conditions, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-10 were included in the baseline survey. Respondents reporting LBP completed a more comprehensive survey inquiring about pain management strategies and several HRQoL measures. Bivariate then multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between baseline characteristics and pain management utilization at 3-month follow-up. Model fit statistics were evaluated to assess the predictive value. Results: The final cohort included 717 respondents with completed surveys. The most prevalent pain management strategy at follow-up was other care (n = 474), followed by no care (n = 94), conservative care only (n = 76), medical care only (n = 51), and medical and conservative care combined (n = 22). The conservative care only group had higher (better) mental and physical health PROMIS-10 scores as opposed to the medical care only and combination care groups, which had lower (worse) physical health scores. In multivariate models, estimated ORs (95% CIs) for the association between baseline and follow-up pain management ranged from 4.6 (2.7-7.8) for conservative care only to 16.8 (6.9-40.7) for medical care only. Additional significant baseline predictors included age, income, education, workman's compensation claim, Oswestry Disability Index score, and Global Chronic Pain Scale grade. Conclusions: This study provides important information regarding the association between patient characteristics, HRQoL measures, and LBP-related pain management utilization.

Estimating individual health-related quality of life changes in low back pain patients.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to evaluate different options for estimating individual change in health-related quality of life for patients with low back pain. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data collected at baseline and 6 weeks later in a randomized trial of 749 adults with low back pain receiving usual medical care (UMC) or UMC plus chiropractic care at a small hospital at a military training site or two large military medical centers. The mean age was 31; 76% were male and 67% were White. The study participants completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v 1.0 physical function, pain interference, pain intensity, fatigue, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, satisfaction with participation in social roles, physical summary, and mental health summary scores (T-scored with mean = 50 and standard deviation (SD) = 10 in the U.S. general population). RESULTS: Reliability estimates at the baseline ranged from 0.700 to 0.969. Six-week test-retest intraclass correlation estimates were substantially lower than these estimates: the median test-retest intraclass correlation for the two-way mixed-effects model was 0. 532. Restricting the test-retest reliability estimates to the subset who reported they were about the same as at baseline on a retrospective rating of change item increased the median test-retest reliability to 0.686. The amount of individual change that was statistically significant varied by how reliability was estimated, and which SD was used. The smallest change needed was found when internal consistency reliability and the SD at baseline were used. When these values were used, the amount of change needed to be statistically significant (p < .05) at the individual level ranged from 3.33 (mental health summary scale) to 12.30 (pain intensity item) T-score points. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that in research studies estimates of the magnitude of individual change needed for statistical significance be provided for multiple reliability and standard deviation estimates. Whenever possible, patients should be classified based on whether they 1) improved significantly and perceived they got better, 2) improved significantly but did not perceive they were better, 3) did not improve significantly but felt they got better, or 4) did not improve significantly or report getting better.

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.

Acupuncture for chronic low back pain in older adults: Design and protocol for the BackInAction pragmatic clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain prevalence and burden increase with age; approximately one-third of U.S. adults 65 years of age and older experience lower back pain (LBP). For chronic low back pain (cLBP), typically defined as lasting three months or longer, many treatments for younger adults may be inappropriate for older adults given their greater prevalence of comorbidities with attendant polypharmacy. While acupuncture has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for cLBP in adults overall, few studies of acupuncture have either included or focused on adults ≥65 years old. METHODS: The BackInAction study is a pragmatic, multi-site, three-arm, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of acupuncture needling for improving back pain-related disability among 807 older adults ≥65 years old with cLBP. Participants are randomized to standard acupuncture (SA; up to 15 treatment sessions across 12 weeks), enhanced acupuncture (EA; SA during first 12 weeks and up to 6 additional sessions across the following 12 weeks), and usual medical care (UMC) alone. Participants are followed for 12 months with study outcomes assessed monthly with the primary outcome timepoint at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The BackInAction study offers an opportunity to further understand the effectiveness, dose-dependence, and safety of acupuncture in a Medicare population. Additionally, study results may encourage broader adoption of more effective, safer, and more satisfactory options to the continuing over-reliance on opioid- and invasive medical treatments for cLBP among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04982315. Clinical trial registration date: July 29, 2021.

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.

Unpacking the impact of chronic pain as measured by the impact stratification score.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the National Institute of Health Pain Consortium's research task force on research standards for chronic low back pain (CLBP) proposed a measure that could be used to stratify patients by the impact CLBP has on their lives, namely the Impact Stratification Score (ISS). This study examines the dimensionality of the ISS and support for its single total score, and evaluates its overall psychometric properties. METHODS: The sample included 1677 chiropractic patients being treated for CLBP and chronic neck pain, had an average age of 49, 71% female, and 90% White. Study participants completed the PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile survey that contains the 9 ISS items. The ISS was evaluated using item-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha, factor analysis (i.e., correlated factors and bifactor models), and item response theory (IRT). Reliability indices and item properties were evaluated from bifactor and IRT models, respectively. RESULTS: Item-total correlations were high (0.64-0.84) with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93. Eigenvalues suggested the possibility of two factors corresponding to physical function and pain interference/intensity. Bifactor model results indicated that data were essentially unidimensional, primarily reflecting one general construct (i.e., impact) and that after accounting for 'impact' very little reliable variance remained in the two group factors. General impact scores were reliable (omegaH = .73). IRT models showed that items were strong indicators of impact and provided information across a wide range of the impact continuum and offer the possibility of a shorter 8-item ISS. Finally, it appears that different aspects of pain interference occur prior to losses in physical function. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents evidence that the ISS is sufficiently unidimensional, covers a range of chronic pain impact and is a reliable measure. Insights are obtained into the sequence of chronic pain impacts on patients' lives.

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.

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.

Assessing the Significance of Individual Change in 2 Samples of Patients in Treatment for Low Back Pain Using 5 Different Statistical Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the significance of individual change using 5 statistical indicators in 2 samples of patients treated for low back pain. METHODS: This secondary analysis used observational and clinical trial data from 2 samples of patients with low back pain to compare 5 ways of estimating significant individual change on the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) administered at the following 2 time points: 3 months apart in an observational study of 1680 patients undergoing chiropractic care, and 6 weeks apart in a randomized trial of 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. The following 5 methods were compared: (1) standard deviation index; (2) standard error of measurement (SEM); (3) standard error of estimate (SEE); (4) standard error of prediction (SEP); and (5) the reliable change index (RCI). The ISS is the sum of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 v2.1 physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores and is scored to have a possible range of 8 (least impact) to 50 (greatest impact). RESULTS: The amount of change on the ISS needed for significant individual change in both samples was 5 for the SEM and for the SEE and 7 for the SEP and RCI. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study provide some preliminary support for use of the SEP or the RCI to identify significant individual change and provide estimated thresholds of individual change that can be used for the ISS. The SEP and RCI estimates of significant change were consistent with retrospective ratings of change of at least moderately better in prior research. These 2 were less likely than other methods to classify people with low back pain as responders who have not actually gotten better (false positive). In contrast, the SEM and SEE were less likely to miss real change (false negative).

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 use of complementary and integrative health approaches for chronic musculoskeletal pain in younger US Veterans: An economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness to the US Veterans Health Administration (VA) of the use of complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches by younger Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) pain. PERSPECTIVE: VA healthcare system. METHODS: We used a propensity score-adjusted hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), and 2010-2013 VA administrative data to estimate differences in VA healthcare costs, pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale), and opioid use between CIH users and nonusers. We identified CIH use in Veterans' medical records through Current Procedural Terminology, VA workload tracking, and provider-type codes. RESULTS: We identified 30,634 younger Veterans with chronic MSD pain as using CIH and 195,424 with no CIH use. CIH users differed from nonusers across all baseline covariates except the Charlson comorbidity index. They also differed on annual pre-CIH-start healthcare costs ($10,729 versus $5,818), pain (4.33 versus 3.76), and opioid use (66.6% versus 54.0%). The HLM results indicated lower annual healthcare costs (-$637; 95% CI: -$1,023, -$247), lower pain (-0.34; -0.40, -0.27), and slightly higher (less than a percentage point) opioid use (0.8; 0.6, 0.9) for CIH users in the year after CIH start. Sensitivity analyses indicated similar results for three most-used CIH approaches (acupuncture, chiropractic care, and massage), but higher costs for those with eight or more CIH visits. CONCLUSIONS: On average CIH use appears associated with lower healthcare costs and pain and slightly higher opioid use in this population of younger Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Given the VA's growing interest in the use of CIH, further, more detailed analyses of its impacts are warranted.