Effects of Including Epidemiologic Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports on Prescribing Non-Opioid Medications for Pain.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of common imaging findings among patients without back pain in spine imaging reports might affect pain medication prescribing for patients with back pain. Prior research on inserting this text suggested a small reduction in opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of epidemiologic information in spine imaging reports on non-opioid pain medication prescribing for primary care patients with back pain. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Lumbar Imaging with Reporting of Epidemiology cluster-randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 170,680 patients aged ≥ 18 years from four healthcare systems who received thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging from 2013 to 2016 and had not received a prescription for non-opioid pain medication in the preceding 120 days. INTERVENTION: Text of age- and modality-specific epidemiologic benchmarks indicating the prevalence of common findings in people without back pain inserted into thoracolumbar, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine imaging reports at intervention clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: any non-opioid prescription within 90 days after index imaging, overall, and by sub-class (skeletal muscle relaxants, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, duloxetine). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: count of non-opioid prescriptions within 90 days, overall, and by sub-class. KEY RESULTS: The intervention was not associated with the likelihood of patients receiving at least one prescription for new non-opioid pain-related medications, overall (adjusted OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08) or by sub-class. The intervention was not associated with the number of prescriptions for any non-opioid medication (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04). However, the intervention was associated with more new prescriptions for NSAIDs (IRR, 1.12) and tricyclic antidepressants (IRR, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Inserting epidemiologic text in spine imaging reports had no effect on whether new non-opioid pain-related medications were prescribed but was associated with the number of new prescriptions for certain non-opioid sub-classes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02015455.

Time to Align Coverage with Evidence for Treatment of Back Pain.

Despite improved knowledge about the benefits and harms of treatments for chronic back pain in the past several decades, there is a large and consequential mismatch between treatments found safe and effective and those routinely covered by health insurance. As a result, care for back pain has, if anything, deteriorated in recent decades-expenses are higher, harms are greater, and use of ineffective treatments is more common. Deficiencies in health care delivery processes and payment models are centrally involved in the failure to improve care for back pain. A key step for accelerating progress is changing insurance coverage policies to facilitate use of the safest and most helpful approaches while discouraging riskier and less effective treatments. Relatively simple changes in reimbursement policies may minimize harm and improve quality of life for many patients with chronic back and similar pain syndromes. Such changes might also reduce health care expenditures because the costs of treatments currently covered by insurance and their associated harms may well outweigh the costs of the relatively safe and effective treatments recommended by current guidelines but poorly covered by insurance. There is no justification for continuing the status quo-patients and clinicians deserve better.

Clinical Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Non-Pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

As a large national healthcare system, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is ideally suited to build on its work to date and develop a safe, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the care of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions that de-emphasizes opioid use and emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies. The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) held a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference titled "Non-pharmacological Approaches to Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Management" in November 2016. Goals of the conference were (1) to establish consensus on the current state of evidence regarding non-pharmacological approaches to chronic musculoskeletal pain to inform VHA policy in this area and (2) to begin to identify priorities for the future VHA research agenda. Workgroups were established and asked to reach consensus recommendations on clinical and research priorities for the following treatment strategies: psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, manual therapies, and models for delivering multimodal pain care. Participants in the SOTA identified nine non-pharmacological therapies with sufficient evidence to be implemented across the VHA system as part of pain care. Participants further recommended that effective integration of these non-pharmacological approaches across the VHA and especially into VHA primary care, pain care, and mental health settings should be a priority, and that these treatments should be offered early in the course of pain treatment and delivered in a team-based, multimodal treatment setting concurrently with active self-care and self-management approaches. In addition, we recommend that VHA leadership and policy makers systematically address the barriers to implementation of these approaches by expanding opportunities for clinician and veteran education on the effectiveness of these strategies; supporting and funding further research to determine optimal dosage, duration, sequencing, combination, and frequency of treatment; emphasizing multimodal care with rigorous evaluation grounded in team-based approaches to test integrated models of delivery and stepped-care approaches; and working to address socioeconomic and cultural barriers to veterans' access to non-pharmacological approaches.

Predictive Validity of the STarT Back Tool for Risk of Persistent Disabling Back Pain in a U.S. Primary Care Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive validity of the Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) tool for classifying people with back pain into categories of low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling back pain in U.S. primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from participants receiving usual care in a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N = 1109) ≥18 years of age with back pain. Those with specific causes of back pain (pregnancy, disc herniation, vertebral fracture, spinal stenosis) and work-related injuries were not included. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The original 9-item version of the STarT Back tool, administered at baseline, stratified patients by their risk (low, medium, high) of persistent disabling back pain (STarT Back risk group). Persistent disabling back pain was defined as Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of ≥7 at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The STarT Back risk group was a significant predictor of persistent disabling back pain (P<.0001) at 6-month follow-up. The proportion of individuals with persistent disabling back pain at follow-up was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-25) in the low-risk group, 62% (95% CI 57-67) in the medium-risk group, and 80% (95% CI 75-85) in the high-risk group. The relative risk of persistent disabling back pain was 2.9 (95% CI 2.4-3.5) in the medium-risk group compared to the low-risk group, and 3.7 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) in the high-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT Back risk groups successfully separated people with back pain into distinct categories of risk for persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up in U.S. primary care. These results were very similar to those in the original STarT Back validation study. This validation study is a necessary first step toward identifying whether the entire STarT Back approach, including matched/targeted treatment, can be effectively used for primary care in the United States.

Effect of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Usual Care on Back Pain and Functional Limitations in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated for young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, interviewer-blind, clinical trial in an integrated health care system in Washington State of 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April 2014 and randomly assigned to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). INTERVENTIONS: CBT (training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviors) and MBSR (training in mindfulness meditation and yoga) were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks. RESULTS: There were 342 randomized participants, the mean (SD) [range] age was 49.3 (12.3) [20-70] years, 224 (65.7%) were women, mean duration of back pain was 7.3 years (range, 3 months-50 years), 123 (53.7%) attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 (86.0%) completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 (84.8%) completed the study at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%) (overall P = .04; relative risk [RR] for MBSR vs usual care, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.77]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77-1.18]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group (overall P = .01; RR for MBSR vs usual care, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.15-2.34]; RR for MBSR vs CBT, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78-1.36]; and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01467843.

A qualitative study of changes in expectations over time among patients with chronic low back pain seeking four CAM therapies.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between patient expectations about a treatment and the treatment outcomes, particularly for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies, is not well understood. Using qualitative data from a larger study to develop a valid expectancy questionnaire for use with participants starting new CAM therapies, we examined how participants' expectations of treatment changed over the course of a therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 64 participants initiating one of four CAM therapies (yoga, chiropractic, acupuncture, massage) for chronic low back pain. Participants just starting treatment were interviewed up to three times over a period of 3 months. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a qualitative mixed methods approach incorporating immersion/crystallization and matrix analysis for a decontexualization and recontextualization approach to understand changes in thematic emphasis over time. RESULTS: Pre-treatment expectations consisted of conjecture about whether or not the CAM therapy could relieve pain and improve participation in meaningful activities. Expectations tended to shift over the course of treatment to be more inclusive of broader lifestyle factors, the need for long-term pain management strategies and attention to long-term quality of life and wellness. Although a shift toward greater acceptance of chronic pain and the need for strategies to keep pain from flaring was observed across participants regardless of therapy, participants varied in their assessments of whether increased awareness of the need for ongoing self-care and maintenance strategies was considered a "positive outcome". Regardless of how participants evaluated the outcome of treatment, participants from all four therapies reported increased awareness, acceptance of the chronic nature of pain, and attention to the need to take responsibility for their own health. CONCLUSIONS: The shift in treatment expectations to greater acceptance of pain and the need for continued self-care suggests that future research should explore how CAM practitioners can capitalize on these shifts to encourage feelings of empowerment rather than disappointment surrounding realizations of the need for continued engagement with self-care.

Five-week outcomes from a dosing trial of therapeutic massage for chronic neck pain.

PURPOSE: This trial was designed to evaluate the optimal dose of massage for individuals with chronic neck pain. METHODS: We recruited 228 individuals with chronic nonspecific neck pain from an integrated health care system and the general population, and randomized them to 5 groups receiving various doses of massage (a 4-week course consisting of 30-minute visits 2 or 3 times weekly or 60-minute visits 1, 2, or 3 times weekly) or to a single control group (a 4-week period on a wait list). We assessed neck-related dysfunction with the Neck Disability Index (range, 0-50 points) and pain intensity with a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10 points) at baseline and 5 weeks. We used log-linear regression to assess the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement in neck-related dysfunction (≥5 points on Neck Disability Index) or pain intensity (≥30% improvement) by treatment group. RESULTS: After adjustment for baseline age, outcome measures, and imbalanced covariates, 30-minute treatments were not significantly better than the wait list control condition in terms of achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in neck dysfunction or pain, regardless of the frequency of treatments. In contrast, 60-minute treatments 2 and 3 times weekly significantly increased the likelihood of such improvement compared with the control condition in terms of both neck dysfunction (relative risk = 3.41 and 4.98, P = .04 and .005, respectively) and pain intensity (relative risk = 2.30 and 2.73; P = .007 and .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After 4 weeks of treatment, we found multiple 60-minute massages per week more effective than fewer or shorter sessions for individuals with chronic neck pain. Clinicians recommending massage and researchers studying this therapy should ensure that patients receive a likely effective dose of treatment.

Cognitive interviews guide design of a new CAM patient expectations questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: No consistent relationship exists between pre-treatment expectations and therapeutic benefit from various complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in clinical trials. However, many different expectancy measures have been used in those studies, with no validated questionnaires clearly focused on CAM and pain. We undertook cognitive interviews as part of a process to develop and validate such a questionnaire. METHODS: We reviewed questions about expectations of benefits of acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, or yoga for pain. Components of the questions - verbs, nouns, response options, terms and phrases describing back pain - were identified. Using seven different cognitive interview scripts, we conducted 39 interviews to evaluate how individuals with chronic low back pain understood these individual components in the context of expectancy questions for a therapy they had not yet received. Chosen items were those with the greatest agreement and least confusion among participants, and were closest to the meanings intended by the investigators. RESULTS: The questionnaire drafted for psychometric evaluation had 18 items covering various domains of expectancy. "Back pain" was the most consistently interpreted descriptor for this condition. The most understandable response options were 0-10 scales, a structure used throughout the questionnaire, with 0 always indicating no change, and 10 anchored with an absolute descriptor such as "complete relief". The use of words to describe midpoints was found to be confusing. The word "expect" held different and shifting meanings for participants. Thus paired items comparing "hope" and "realistically expect" were chosen to evaluate 5 different aspects of treatment expectations (back pain; back dysfunction and global effects; impact of back pain on specific areas of life; sleep, mood, and energy; coping). "Impact of back pain" on various areas of life was found to be a consistently meaningful concept, and more global than "interference". CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviews identified wordings with considerable agreement among both participants and investigators. Some items widely used in clinical studies had different meanings to participants than investigators, or were confusing to participants. The final 18-item questionnaire is undergoing psychometric evaluation with goals of streamlining as well as identifying best items for use when questionnaire length is constrained.

New perspectives on patient expectations of treatment outcomes: results from qualitative interviews with patients seeking complementary and alternative medicine treatments for chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Positive patient expectations are often believed to be associated with greater benefits from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. However, clinical studies of CAM treatments for chronic pain have not consistently supported this assumption, possibly because of differences in definitions and measures of expectations. The goal of this qualitative paper is to provide new perspectives on the outcome expectations of patients prior to receiving CAM therapies for chronic low back pain. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 64 individuals receiving massage, chiropractic, acupuncture or yoga for chronic low back pain. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed by a team of experienced qualitative researchers using an immersion/crystallization approach to coding and analysis. RESULTS: Overall, participants' expectations of treatment outcomes tended to cluster in four key domains: pain relief, improved function (including an increase in ability to engage in meaningful activities), improved physical fitness, and improved overall well-being (including mental well-being). Typically, patients had modest expectations for outcomes from treatment. Furthermore, outcome expectations were complex on several levels. First, the concept of expectations overlapped with several related concepts; in particular, hopes. Participants sometimes used expectations and hopes interchangeably and at other times made clear distinctions between these two terms depending on context. A related finding was that participants were cautious about stating that they expected positive outcomes. Finally, participants articulated strong interrelationships among the four key domains and often discussed how changes in one domain might affect other domains. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings contribute to a growing body of literature exploring the role of expectations in patient outcomes. This paper provides important guidance that may help refine the way treatment expectations are studied in the future. In particular, participants' statements indicate that standardized measures of patient expectations should include items that capture hesitancy to articulate overly optimistic outcomes as well as interrelationships among different outcomes.

Moderators and Nonspecific Predictors of Treatment Benefits in a Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction vs Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy vs Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Both mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are effective for chronic low back pain (CLBP), but little is known regarding who might benefit more from one than the other. Using data from a randomized trial comparing MBSR, CBT, and usual care (UC) for adults aged 20 to 70 years with CLBP (N = 297), we examined baseline characteristics that moderated treatment effects or were associated with improvement regardless of treatment. Outcomes included 8-week function (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire), pain bothersomeness (0-10 numerical rating scale), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8). There were differences in the effects of CBT versus MBSR on pain based on participant gender (P = .03) and baseline depressive symptoms (P = .01), but the only statistically significant moderator after Bonferroni correction was the nonjudging dimension of mindfulness. Scores on this measure moderated the effects of CBT versus MBSR on both function (P = .001) and pain (P = .04). Pain control beliefs (P <.001) and lower anxiety (P < .001) predicted improvement regardless of treatment. Replication of these findings is needed to guide treatment decision-making for CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial and analysis plan were preregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01467843). PERSPECTIVE: Although few potential moderators and nonspecific predictors of benefits from CBT or MBSR for CLBP were statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, these findings suggest potentially fruitful directions for confirmatory research while providing reassurance that patients could reasonably expect to benefit from either treatment.

The association of complementary and alternative medicine use and health care expenditures for back and neck problems.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs associated with use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients with spine problems have not been studied in a national sample. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total and spine-specific medical expenditures among CAM and non-CAM users with spine problems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analysis of the 2002-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. SUBJECTS: Adults (above 17 y) with self-reported neck and back problems who did or did not use CAM services. MEASURES: Survey-weighted generalized linear regression and propensity matching to examine expenditure differences between CAM users and non-CAM users while controlling for patient, socioeconomic, and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 12,036 respondents with spine problems were included, including 4306 (35.8%) CAM users (40.8% in weighted sample). CAM users had significantly better self-reported health, education, and comorbidity compared with non-CAM users. Adjusted annual medical costs among CAM users was $424 lower (95% confidence interval: $240, $609; P<0.001) for spine-related costs, and $796 lower (95% confidence interval: $121, $1470; P = 0.021) for total health care cost than among non-CAM users. Average expenditure for CAM users, based on propensity matching, was $526 lower for spine-specific costs (P<0.001) and $298 lower for total health costs (P = 0.403). Expenditure differences were primarily due to lower inpatient expenditures among CAM users. CONCLUSIONS: CAM users did not add to the overall medical spending in a nationally representative sample with neck and back problems. As the causal associations remain unclear in these cross-sectional data, future research exploring these cost differences might benefit from research designs that minimize confounding.

A comparison of the effects of 2 types of massage and usual care on chronic low back pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 types of massage and usual care for chronic back pain. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, with centralized allocation concealment. Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to massage versus usual care. Massage therapists were unblinded. The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00371384) SETTING: An integrated health care delivery system in the Seattle area. PATIENTS: 401 persons 20 to 65 years of age with nonspecific chronic low back pain. INTERVENTION: Structural massage (n = 132), relaxation massage (n = 136), or usual care (n = 133). MEASUREMENTS: Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) and symptom bothersomeness scores at 10 weeks (primary outcome) and at 26 and 52 weeks (secondary outcomes). Mean group differences of at least 2 points on the RDQ and at least 1.5 points on the symptom bothersomeness scale were considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: The massage groups had similar functional outcomes at 10 weeks. The adjusted mean RDQ score was 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.0 points) lower in the relaxation group and 2.5 points (CI, 1.4 to 3.5 points) lower in the structural massage group than in the usual care group, and adjusted mean symptom bothersomeness scores were 1.7 points (CI, 1.2 to 2.2 points) lower with relaxation massage and 1.4 points (CI, 0.8 to 1.9 points) lower with structural massage. The beneficial effects of relaxation massage on function (but not on symptom reduction) persisted at 52 weeks but were small. LIMITATION: Participants were not blinded to treatment. CONCLUSION: Massage therapy may be effective for treatment of chronic back pain, with benefits lasting at least 6 months. No clinically meaningful difference between relaxation and structural massage was observed in terms of relieving disability or symptoms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers' views of chronic low back pain patients' expectations of CAM therapies: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Some researchers think that patients with higher expectations for CAM therapies experience better outcomes and that enthusiastic providers can enhance treatment outcomes. This is in contrast to evidence suggesting conventional medical providers often reorient patient expectations to better match what providers believe to be realistic. However, there is a paucity of research on CAM providers' views of their patients' expectations regarding CAM therapy and the role of these expectations in patient outcomes. METHODS: To better understand how CAM providers view and respond to their patients' expectations of a particular therapy, we conducted 32 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists and yoga instructors identified through convenience sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically using Atlas ti version 6.1. RESULTS: CAM providers reported that they attempt to ensure that their patients' expectations are realistic. Providers indicated they manage their patients' expectations in a number of domains- roles and responsibilities of providers and patients, treatment outcomes, timeframe for improvement, and treatment experience. Providers reported that patients' expectations change over time and that they need to continually manage these expectations to enhance patient engagement and satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Providers of four types of CAM therapies viewed patients' expectations as an important component of their experiences with CAM therapy and indicated that they try to align patient expectations with reality. These findings suggest that CAM providers are similar in this respect to conventional medical providers.

Dosing study of massage for chronic neck pain: protocol for the dose response evaluation and analysis of massage [DREAM] trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of massage, its effectiveness for treating neck pain remains unclear, largely because of the poor quality of research. A major deficiency of previous studies has been their use of low "doses" of massage that massage therapists consider inadequate. Unfortunately, the number of minutes per massage session, sessions per week, or weeks of treatment necessary for massage to have beneficial or optimal effects are not known. This study is designed to address these gaps in our knowledge by determining, for persons with chronic neck pain: 1) the optimal combination of number of treatments per week and length of individual treatment session, and 2) the optimal number of weeks of treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study, 228 persons with chronic non-specific neck pain will be recruited from primary health care clinics in a large health care system in the Seattle area. Participants will be randomized to a wait list control group or 4 weeks of treatment with one of 5 different dosing combinations (2 or 3 30-min treatments per week or 1, 2, or 3 60-min treatments per week). At the end of this 4-week primary treatment period, participants initially receiving each of the 5 dosing combinations will be randomized to a secondary treatment period of either no additional treatment or 6 weekly 60-min massages. The primary outcomes, neck-related dysfunction and pain, will be assessed by blinded telephone interviewers 5, 12, and 26 weeks post-randomization. To better characterize the trajectory of treatment effects, these interview data will be supplemented with outcomes data collected by internet questionnaire at 10, 16, 20 and 39 weeks. Comparisons of outcomes for the 6 groups during the primary treatment period will identify the optimal weekly dose, while comparisons of outcomes during the secondary treatment period will determine if 10 weeks of treatment is superior to 4 weeks. DISCUSSION: A broad dosing schedule was included in this trial. If adherence to any of these doses is poor, those doses will be discontinued. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with the ID number of NCT01122836

Patient and clinician openness to including a broader range of healing options in primary care.

PURPOSE: We studied the openness of patients and clinicians to introducing a broader range of healing options into primary care. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with primary care patients (4 groups) and clinicians (3 groups) from an integrated medical care system in 2008. Transcripts of discussions were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach. RESULTS: Both patients (n = 44) and clinicians (n = 32) were open to including a wider variety of healing options in primary care. Patients desired some evidence of effectiveness, although there was wide variation in the type of evidence required. Many patients believed that the clinician's personal and practice experience was an important form of evidence. Patients wanted to share in the decision to refer and the choice of options. Clinicians were most concerned with safety of specific treatments, including some of the herbs and dietary supplements. They also believed they lacked adequate information about the nature, benefits, and risks of many alternatives, and they were not aware of local practitioners and resources to whom they could confidently refer their patients. Both patients and clinicians were concerned that services recommended be covered by insurance or be affordable to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating additional healing options into primary care may be feasible and desirable, as well as help meet the needs of patients with conditions that have not been responsive to standard medical treatments.

A systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of dance therapy.

BACKGROUND: Dance therapy uses psychotherapeutic movement to support the cognitive, emotional, physical, and social integration of a person. Dance therapy may be of value for people with developmental, medical, social, physical, or psychological impairments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the hypothesis that dance therapy has therapeutic benefits by systematically analyzing and summarizing the evidence. METHODS: Thirteen databases were searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of dance therapy. The Overall Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) was used to assess review quality, and RCT quality was assessed using the Jadad Scale. RESULTS: Eight reviews and 18 RCTs about the effectiveness of dance therapy met our inclusion criteria. According to the OQAQ seven of the eight reviews were of poor methodological quality. The quality of the RCTs ranged from poor to good. In most cases, the reviews and trials reported positive benefits related to improvements in quality of life, self-esteem, or coping with a disease. CONCLUSION: Most studies have found therapeutic benefits of dance therapy, although these results are based on generally poor-quality evidence. Dance therapy should be considered as a potentially relevant add-on therapy for a variety of conditions that do not respond well to conventional medical treatments. Well-performed RCTs and observational studies are highly recommended to determine the real value of dance therapy.

Predicting Persistent Disabling Low Back Pain in Veterans Affairs Primary Care Using the STarT Back Tool.

BACKGROUND: The Subgrouping for Targeted Treatment (STarT Back) is a stratified care approach to low back pain (LBP) treatment. The predictive validity of STarT Back in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care has not been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of the STarT Back tool for predicting future persistent disabling LBP in VA primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: VA primary care in Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans seeking care for LBP in VA primary care clinics. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The STarT Back tool was used to classify Veterans according to their baseline risk group (low vs medium vs high). The primary study outcome, persistent disabling LBP, was defined as a Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 7 at 6-month follow-up. Analyses examined discrimination and calibration of the baseline STarT Back risk groups for prediction of persistent disabling LBP at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of the study sample, 9% were female and 80% reported longstanding LBP (>5 year duration). Among 538 participants, the baseline STarT Back risk groups were associated with future persistent disabling LBP at 6-month follow-up. Within each baseline STarT Back risk group, the proportions with future persistent disabling LBP at 6-month follow-up were 54% (low risk), 88% (medium risk), and 97% (high risk). The baseline STarT Back risk groups had useful discrimination (area under the curve [AUC] 0.79) for predicting future persistent disabling LBP, but the proportion of Veterans with persistent disabling LBP at 6-month follow-up was substantially higher than that observed in non-VA primary care settings. CONCLUSIONS: The STarT Back risk groups had useful discrimination (AUC = 0.79) for future persistent disabling LBP, but calibration was poor, underestimating the risk of persistent disabling LBP. The STarT Back tool may require updating for use in VA primary care.