Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.</p> <p>The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

Nurses' experiences, expectations, and preferences for mind-body practices to reduce stress

BACKGROUND: Most research on the impact of mind-body training does not ask about participants\u27 baseline experience, expectations, or preferences for training. To better plan participant-centered mind-body intervention trials for nurses to reduce occupational stress, such descriptive information would be valuable. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous email survey between April and June, 2010 of North American nurses interested in mind-body training to reduce stress. The e-survey included: demographic characteristics, health conditions and stress levels; experiences with mind-body practices; expected health benefits; training preferences; and willingness to participate in future randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Of the 342 respondents, 96% were women and 92% were Caucasian. Most (73%) reported one or more health conditions, notably anxiety (49%); back pain (41%); GI problems such as irritable bowel syndrome (34%); or depression (33%). Their median occupational stress level was 4 (0 = none; 5 = extreme stress). Nearly all (99%) reported already using one or more mind-body practices to reduce stress: intercessory prayer (86%), breath-focused meditation (49%), healing or therapeutic touch (39%), yoga/tai chi/qi gong (34%), or mindfulness-based meditation (18%). The greatest expected benefits were for greater spiritual well-being (56%); serenity, calm, or inner peace (54%); better mood (51%); more compassion (50%); or better sleep (42%). Most (65%) wanted additional training; convenience (74% essential or very important), was more important than the program\u27s reputation (49%) or scientific evidence about effectiveness (32%) in program selection. Most (65%) were willing to participate in a randomized trial of mind-body training; among these, most were willing to collect salivary cortisol (60%), or serum biomarkers (53%) to assess the impact of training. CONCLUSIONS: Most nurses interested in mind-body training already engage in such practices. They have greater expectations about spiritual and emotional than physical benefits, but are willing to participate in studies and to collect biomarker data. Recruitment may depend more on convenience than a program\u27s scientific basis or reputation. Knowledge of participants\u27 baseline experiences, expectations, and preferences helps inform future training and research on mind-body approaches to reduce stress

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Background Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice? Methods Stakeholders' opinions and ideas will be explored through an 18-month qualitative study. Data will be collected from in-depth individual interviews. A purposive sample of 20 to 25 key-informants will be selected among three groups of stakeholders: health professionals using guidelines (e.g., physicians, nurses); experts at the macro- and meso-level, including guideline and decision aids developers, policy makers, and researchers; and patient representatives. Ideas and recommendations expressed by stakeholders will be prioritized by nominal group technique in expert meetings. Discussion One-for-all guidelines do not account for differences in patients' characteristics and for their preferences for medical interventions and health outcomes, suggesting a need for flexible guidelines that facilitate patient involvement in clinical decision making. The question is how this can be achieved. This study is not about patient participation in guideline development, a closely related and important issue that does not however substitute for, or guarantee individual patient involvement in clinical decisions. The study results will provide the needed background for recommendations about potential effective and feasible strategies to ensure greater responsiveness of clinical practice guidelines to individual patient's preferences in clinical decision-making

Hope and despair: a qualitative exploration of the expereinces and impact of trial processes in a rehabilitation trial

Background Unanticipated responses by research participants can influence randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple ways, many of which are poorly understood. This study used qualitative interviews as part of an embedded process evaluation to explore the impact participants may have on the study, but also unintended impacts the study may have on them. Aim The aim of the study was to explore participants’ experiences and the impact of trial involvement in a pilot RCT in order to inform the designing and delivery of a definitive RCT. Methods In-depth interviews with 20 participants (10 in the intervention and 10 in the control group) enrolled in a stroke rehabilitation pilot trial. A modified framework approach was used to analyse transcripts. Results Participation in the study was motivated partly by a desperation to receive further rehabilitation after discharge. Responses to allocation to the control group included an increased commitment to self-treatment, and negative psychological consequences were also described. Accounts of participants in both control and intervention groups challenge the presumption that they were neutral, or in equipoise, regarding group allocation prior to consenting to randomisation. Conclusions Considering and exploring participant and participation effects, particularly in the control group, highlights numerous issues in the interpretation of trial studies, as well as the in ethics of RCTs more generally. While suggestions for a definitive trial design are given, further research is required to investigate the significant implications these findings may have for trial design, monitoring and funding. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02429180. Registered on 29 April/2015.The Stroke Associatio