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.

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.

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.

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.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a single-arm, pragmatic, pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for U.S. veterans with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Over 25% of veterans seeking care at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities have chronic low back pain (LBP), with high rates of mental health comorbidities. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection to prepare for the subsequent randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for pain management of veterans with chronic low back pain. The secondary objectives were to estimate effect sizes and variability of the primary outcome and choose secondary outcomes for the full-scale trial. METHODS: This single-arm pilot trial enrolled 40 veterans with chronic LBP at one Veterans Health Administration facility for a 10-week course of pragmatic multimodal chiropractic care. Recruitment was by (1) provider referral, (2) invitational letter from the electronic health record pre-screening, and (3) standard direct recruitment. We administered patient-reported outcome assessments through an email link to REDCap, an electronic data capture platform, at baseline and 5 additional timepoints. Retention was tracked through adherence to the treatment plan and completion rates of outcome assessments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for baseline characteristics and outcome variables. RESULTS: We screened 91 veterans over 6 months to enroll our goal of 40 participants. Seventy percent were recruited through provider referrals. Mean age (range) was 53 (22-79) years and 23% were female; 95% had mental health comorbidities. The mean number of chiropractic visits was 4.5 (1-7). Participants adhered to their treatment plan, with exception of 3 who attended only their first visit. All participants completed assessments at the in-person baseline visit and 80% at the week 10 final endpoint. We had no issues administering assessments via REDCap. We observed clinically important improvements on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [mean change (SD): 3.6 (6.1)] and on PROMIS® pain interference [mean change (SD): 3.6 (5.6)], which will be our primary and key secondary outcome, respectively, for the full-scale trial. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and electronic data collection for conducting a pragmatic clinical trial of chiropractic care in a Veterans Health Administration facility. Using the pilot data and lessons learned, we modified and refined a protocol for a full-scale, multisite, pragmatic, National Institutes of Health-funded randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for veterans with chronic LBP that began recruitment in February 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719.

Care Outcomes for Chiropractic Outpatient Veterans (COCOV): a qualitative study with veteran stakeholders from a pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is common among military veterans seeking treatment in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities. As chiropractic services within VA expand, well-designed pragmatic trials and implementation studies are needed to assess clinical effectiveness and program uptake. This study evaluated veteran stakeholder perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of care delivery and research processes in a pilot trial of multimodal chiropractic care for chronic LBP. METHODS: The qualitative study was completed within a mixed-method, single-arm, pragmatic, pilot clinical trial of chiropractic care for LBP conducted in VA chiropractic clinics. Study coordinators completed semi-structured, in person or telephone interviews with veterans near the end of the 10-week trial. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis using a directed approach explored salient themes related to trial implementation and delivery of chiropractic services. RESULTS: Of 40 participants, 24 completed interviews (60% response; 67% male gender; mean age 51.7 years). Overall, participants considered the trial protocol and procedures feasible and reported that the chiropractic care and recruitment methods were acceptable. Findings were organized into 4 domains, 10 themes, and 21 subthemes. Chiropractic service delivery domain encompassed 3 themes/8 subthemes: scheduling process (limited clinic hours, scheduling future appointments, attendance barriers); treatment frequency (treatment sufficient for LBP complaint, more/less frequent treatments); and chiropractic clinic considerations (hire more chiropractors, including female chiropractors; chiropractic clinic environment; patient-centered treatment visits). Outcome measures domain comprised 3 themes/4 subthemes: questionnaire burden (low burden vs. time-consuming or repetitive); relevance (items relevant for LBP study); and timing and individualization of measures (questionnaire timing relative to symptoms, personalized approach to outcomes measures). The online data collection domain included 2 themes/4 subthemes: user concerns (little difficulty vs. form challenges, required computer skills); and technology issues (computer/internet access, junk mail). Clinical trial planning domain included 2 themes/5 subthemes: participant recruitment (altruistic service by veterans, awareness of chiropractic availability, financial compensation); and communication methods (preferences, potential barriers). CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study highlighted veteran stakeholders' perceptions of VA-based chiropractic services and offered important suggestions for conducting a full-scale, veteran-focused, randomized trial of multimodal chiropractic care for chronic LBP in this clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03254719.

"Like Peanut Butter and Jelly": A Qualitative Study of Chiropractic Care and Home Exercise Among Older Adults With Spinal Disability.

OBJECTIVE: A mixed-methods, randomized controlled trial comparing short- and long-term chiropractic care and exercise therapy for spinal disability in older adults found no between-group differences in the primary outcome. However, those who received long-term management reported greater improvement in neck pain, self-efficacy, function, and balance. This nested qualitative study explored participants' perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of chiropractic care and exercise for spine-related outcomes, with an emphasis on understanding what makes treatment for spine-related problems worthwhile. METHODS: Of 171 individual interviews conducted after completing study treatment, 50 participants (25 per treatment group) were randomly selected for this analysis. Qualitative descriptive analysis included dual coding of verbatim transcripts by 2 investigators (MM and SAS), which was further distilled into a consensus-derived codebook of themes and organized using NVIVO software. RESULTS: Participants described trial interventions as complementary to one another for spine-related disability. Chiropractic care was viewed as improving spinal pain and controlling symptoms, while exercise therapy was noted for its long-term impact on self-efficacy and self-management. These older adults considered changes in pain, global sense of improvement, and improved biomechanical function as making treatment worthwhile. CONCLUSION: Older adults valued nonpharmacologic treatment options that aided them in controlling spine-related symptoms, while empowering them to maintain clinical benefit gained after a course of chiropractic spinal manipulation and exercise. The complementary nature of provider-delivered and active care modalities may be an important consideration when developing care plans. This study underscores the importance of understanding participants' values and experiences when interpreting study results and applying them to practice.

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.

Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation (SMT) and mobilisation (MOB) are widely used and recommended in the best practice guidelines for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AEs) have been reported following these interventions, a clear definition and classification system for AEs remains unsettled. With many professionals using SMT and MOB, establishing consensus on a definition and classification system is needed to assist with the assimilation of AEs data across professions and to inform research priorities to optimise safety in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international multidisciplinary electronic Delphi study protocol is informed by a scoping review and in accordance with the 'Guidance on Conduction and Reporting Delphi Studies'. With oversight from an expert steering committee, the study comprises three rounds using online questionnaires. Experts in manual therapy and patient safety meeting strict eligibility criteria from the following fields will be invited to participate: clinical, medical and legal practice, health records, regulatory bodies, researchers and patients. Round 1 will include open-ended questions on participants' working definition and/or understanding of AEs following SMT and MOB and their severity classification. In round 2, participants will rate their level of agreement with statements generated from round 1 and our scoping review. In round 3, participants will rerate their agreement with statements achieving consensus in round 2. Statements reaching consensus must meet the a priori criteria, as determined by descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics will be used to evaluate agreement between participants and stability of responses between rounds. Statements achieving consensus in round 3 will provide an expert-derived definition and classification system for AEs following SMT and MOB. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Research Ethics Board and deemed exempt by Parker University's Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through scientific, professional and educational reports, publications and presentations.

Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pragmatic clinical trial participants.

Characterizing the impacts of disruption attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research is important, especially in pain research where psychological, social, and economic stressors attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic may greatly impact treatment effects. The National Institutes of Health - Department of Defense - Department of Veterans Affairs Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) is a collective effort supporting 11 pragmatic clinical trials studying nonpharmacological approaches and innovative integrated care models for pain management in veteran and military health systems. The PMC rapidly developed a brief pandemic impacts measure for use across its pragmatic trials studying pain while remaining broadly applicable to other areas of clinical research. Through open discussion and consensus building by the PMC's Phenotypes and Outcomes Work Group, the PMC Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) Measure was iteratively developed. The measure assesses the following domains (one item/domain): access to healthcare, social support, finances, ability to meet basic needs, and mental or emotional health. Two additional items assess infection status (personal and household) and hospitalization. The measure uses structured responses with a three-point scale for COVID-19 infection status and four-point ordinal rank response for all other domains. We recommend individualized adaptation as appropriate by clinical research teams using this measure to survey the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on study participants. This can also help maintain utility of the measure beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to characterize impacts during future public health emergencies that may require mitigation strategies such as periods of quarantine and isolation.

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.

Aromatherapy for test anxiety in chiropractic students.

OBJECTIVE: Up to 85% of college students experience test anxiety, which may contribute to decreased academic performance. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting chiropractic students for a randomized trial involving aromatherapy for anxiety reduction. METHODS: This study enrolled chiropractic students who were randomly assigned to separate rooms during a biochemistry test. Waterless diffusers dispersed a lemon and rosemary blend of essential oils in the experimental room and water in the control room. Students completed pretest surveys rating current and general anxiety. Posttest surveys included rating current anxiety. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was preformed to determine within- and between-group differences for current anxiety. Feasibility was the primary aim, and the statistical significance of anxiety test scores between rooms was the secondary aim. RESULTS: Sixty-four students were included in the study. The feasibility of research methods was noted for adherence to the study protocol (informed consent, randomization, and survey distribution and completion) and resource allocation. Design improvements are required in recruitment methods, follow-up surveys, and intervention blinding. ANCOVA for between-group comparisons showed no statistically significant difference between groups' pre- and posttest anxiety scores (p = .22). Two reported side effects, eye and sinus irritation, could not be attributed to treatment group. Most students were willing to use aromatherapy for test anxiety in the future. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated feasibility in conducting a randomized study to measure the influence of aromatherapy on test anxiety in chiropractic students. A powered, randomized study is needed to determine if aromatherapy may be effective in reducing test anxiety.

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.

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.

Improper Communication Makes for Squat: A Qualitative Study of the Health-Care Processes Experienced By Older Adults in a Clinical Trial for Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: The study focused on perceptions of older adults toward the healthcare processes they experienced during a clinical trial for back pain that involved family medicine residents and licensed chiropractors. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 115 older adults after a 12-week, 3-arm, randomized controlled trial. Two researchers conducted thematic analysis with inductive coding using qualitative software to identify participants' salient experiences of the doctor-patient relationship, healthcare process, and collaboration between study providers. Investigators categorized thematic codes within an existing framework of clinical excellence in primary care. RESULTS: Participants emphasized provider communication and interpersonal relationships, professionalism and passion for patient care, clinical and diagnostic acumen, and skillful negotiation of the health-care system. Older adults also described the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and their preferences for receiving hands-on treatments for musculoskeletal conditions. CONCLUSION: These older adults valued doctors who communicated clearly and spent time listening to their concerns. Many participants appreciated clinicians who supported an active role for patients in their health-care and who provided touch-based care for musculoskeletal conditions.

Patient safety in chiropractic teaching programs: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety research has lagged within academic settings, including chiropractic teaching institutions. To develop a robust patient safety culture, the Institute of Medicine emphasized the need for employee's attitudes to be understanding and positive. To initiate the assessment of the current culture and future needs, this study evaluated patient safety attitudes among chiropractic teaching clinic stakeholders (supervising clinicians, student interns, and administrative staff) and compared their standardized survey scores to established medical survey databases. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey design with quantitative analytic priority. Chiropractic interns, clinical faculty, and clinic staff of 5 international chiropractic educational programs completed a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Culture for Medical Offices Survey with open-ended comment fields between 2014 and 2016. Composite means of positive responses were calculated and compared to patient safety, quality of care, and overall self-ratings benchmarks from Canadian providers and academic settings in the AHRQ database. Qualitative responses were thematically categorized for a convergent analysis of quantitative results for the chiropractic sample. RESULTS: Chiropractic survey response rate was 45.3% (n = 645). Quantitative survey results indicated moderate scores and ranges (57-85%) on all patient safety dimensions for the chiropractic samples. Academic medicine and chiropractic providers' benchmarks scored higher positive responses than chiropractic teaching clinics on most quantitative dimensions, except for work pressure/pace. Teamwork, organizational learning, and patient tracking/follow-up were the most positively endorsed quantitative dimensions, with communication, staff training, office standardization, and leadership support considered areas for improvement in both settings. Qualitative responses for the chiropractic clinics identified a need for open communication; additional staff training and student involvement in creating safety cultures; standardization of office processes including information exchange, scheduling, and equipment maintenance; and leadership support that focused on decreasing work pressure/pace and setting safety priorities. CONCLUSION: As the first report of patient safety attitudes from stakeholders in chiropractic teaching clinics, specific areas of improvement were identified. Chiropractic teaching programs might consider incorporating these and related patient safety concepts into their formal curricula. Mixed methods approach offers teaching clinics opportunities to assess stakeholders' insights and enhance safe delivery of chiropractic care.

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.

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.