Faculty Scholarship

The overall objective of our educational program is to facilitate evidence informed practice (EIP) among CAM practitioners. Through the practice of EIP, we aim to educate research-literate Content on integrative healthcare and complementary and alternative medicine is being taught in hundreds of educational programs across the country. Nursing, medical, osteopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathic, and other programs are finding creative and innovative ways to include these approaches in new models of education and practice. 

The purpose of this study was to assess the relative efficacy of supervised exercise, spinal manipulation, and home exercise for the treatment of CLBP.  A total of 301 individuals were included in this trial. For all three treatment groups, outcomes improved during the 12 weeks of treatment. Those who received supervised trunk exercise were most satisfied with care and experienced the greatest gains in trunk muscle endurance and strength, but they did not significantly differ from those receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation or home exercise in terms of pain and other patient-rated individual outcomes, in both the short- and long-term.  For CLBP, supervised exercise was significantly better than chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise in terms of satisfaction with treatment and trunk muscle endurance and strength. Although the short- and long-term differences between groups in patient-rated pain, disability, improvement, general health status, and medication use consistently favored the supervised exercise group, the differences were relatively small and not statistically significant for these individual outcomes.

Background: For the treatment of chronic back pain, it has been theorized that integrative care plans can lead to
better outcomes than those achieved by monodisciplinary care alone, especially when using a collaborative,
interdisciplinary, and non-hierarchical team approach. This paper describes the use of a care pathway designed to
guide treatment by an integrative group of providers within a randomized controlled trial.

Methods: A clinical care pathway was used by a multidisciplinary group of providers, which included
acupuncturists, chiropractors, cognitive behavioral therapists, exercise therapists, massage therapists and primary
care physicians. Treatment recommendations were based on an evidence-informed practice model, and reached
by group consensus. Research study participants were empowered to select one of the treatment
recommendations proposed by the integrative group. Common principles and benchmarks were established to
guide treatment management throughout the study.

Results: Thirteen providers representing 5 healthcare professions collaborated to provide integrative care to study
participants. On average, 3 to 4 treatment plans, each consisting of 2 to 3 modalities, were recommended to study
participants. Exercise, massage, and acupuncture were both most commonly recommended by the team and
selected by study participants. Changes to care commonly incorporated cognitive behavioral therapy into
treatment plans.

Conclusion: This clinical care pathway was a useful tool for the consistent application of evidence-based care for
low back pain in the context of an integrative setting.

Background:  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. 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.

 Methods and Design: 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.

 Discussion: 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.

Objective: There is a growing need for students and practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine to gain experience with standardized data collection, patient outcomes measurement, and practice-based research. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a process for standardized data collection that could eventually be adopted for clinical, research, and quality assurance purposes. Settings/location: The setting for this study was an acupuncture and Oriental medicine teaching clinic in Bloomington, Minnesota. 

Methods: Four (4) aspects of data collection were assessed and improved, including intake and post-treatment questionnaires, follow-up with patients, integration of data collection into clinic flow, and commitment of resources to the project. 

Outcome measures: The outcomes measures were data collection and missing data rates, burden on patients and clinic staff, and efficiency of data entry. Results: Revision to the data collection process resulted in decreased burden to patients and staff, more detailed and aggressive follow-up protocols, enhanced training for clinic staff, and increased personnel and data related resources.

 Conclusions: The systematic collection of descriptive and clinical characteristics can be accomplished in a teaching clinic with thoughtful attention paid to data collection protocols, dedicated resources, and the involvement of all relevant personnel.

Content on integrative healthcare and complementary and alternative medicine is being taught in hundreds of educational programs across the country. Nursing, medical, osteopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, naturopathic, and other programs are finding creative and innovative ways to include these approaches in new models of education and practice. This column spotlights such innovations in integrative healthcare and CAM education and presents readers with specific educational interventions they can adapt into new or ongoing educational efforts at their institution or programs. We invite readers to submit brief descriptions of efforts in their institutions that reflect the creativity, diversity, and interdisciplinary nature of the field. 

 Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe patients who seek treatment at an acupuncture and Oriental medicine teaching clinic in the United States, and to systematically measure and describe patients' responses after treatment using a prospective study design.

Design: This is a prospective survey of clinic patients at intake and one month following the initial treatment.

Settings and location: Data were collected in an acupuncture and Oriental medicine teaching clinic located in Bloomington, Minnesota.

Subjects: Of 661 new patients who met eligibility criteria, 485 consented to participate.

Interventions: Patients were administered two self-report questionnaires: one prior to their initial treatment, and a second sent by mail one month later.

Outcome measures: Data collected at intake included demographics such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, and employment, as well as main presenting complaint and chronicity. Patients were also asked at intake whether they had consulted with another health care provider, if they were under continued care, and if they had previous experience with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) treatment. Outcome measures included severity, improvement, and satisfaction. Patients were additionally asked if they continued with TCM care for their presenting condition.

Results: Demographics of patients presenting to this teaching clinic were similar to those reported in other outpatient TCM settings. The majority of patients had no previous experience with TCM, and a large percentage was referred by students. Pain was the most common presenting condition, followed closely by wellness care. One month following treatment, most patients reported improvement and satisfaction with care.

Conclusions: Standardized data collection and follow-up resulted in a description of patients and outcomes in an acupuncture and Oriental medicine teaching clinic, which can be used for research, educational, quality assurance, and marketing purposes.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common conditions in old age, leading to impaired functional ability and decreased independence. Manual and exercise therapies are common and effective therapies for the general LBP and NP populations. However, these treatments have not been adequately researched in older LBP and NP sufferers.

The primary aim of these studies is to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) manual treatment plus home exercise, 2) supervised rehabilitative exercise plus home exercise, and 3) home exercise alone, in terms of patient-rated pain, for senior LBP and NP patients. Secondary aims are to compare the three treatment approaches in regards to patient-rated disability, general health status, satisfaction, improvement and medication use, as well as objective outcomes of spinal motion, trunk strength and endurance, and functional ability. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility will also be assessed. Finally, using qualitative methods, older LBP and NP patient's perceptions of treatment will be explored and described.

Methods/Design: This paper describes the design of two multi-methods clinical studies focusing on elderly patients with non-acute LBP and NP. Each study includes a randomized clinical trial (RCT), a cost-effectiveness study alongside the RCT, and a qualitative study. Four hundred and eighty participants (240 per study), ages 65 and older, will be recruited and randomized to one of three, 12-week treatment programs. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcomes are assessed by examiners masked to treatment assignment at baseline and 12 weeks. Health care cost data is collected through standardized clinician forms, monthly phone interviews, and self-report questionnaires throughout the study. Qualitative interviews using a semi-structured format are conducted at the end of the 12 week treatment period.

Discussion: To our knowledge, these are the first randomized clinical trials to comprehensively address clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' perceptions of commonly used treatments for elderly LBP and NP sufferers.

Objective: To assess the feasibility of recruiting sciatica patients and to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial. We also aimed to determine the responsiveness of key outcome measures.

Methods: Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n=11), epidural steroid injections (n=11), or self-care education (n=10). No between-group comparisons were planned because of the small sample size.

Results: At week 12 (the end of the treatment phase), the outcome measures indicating the most improvement/change were the Oswestry disability score (mean, 22.9; SD, 19.9; effect size [ES], 1.8), leg pain severity (mean, 2.9; SD, 1.7; ES, 1.7), and if the symptoms were bothersome (mean, 25.2; SD, 16.0; ES, 1.6). Twenty-four patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 22 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. After 52 weeks, the outcome measure showing the most improvement/change was leg pain severity (mean, 2.3; SD, 2.6; ES, 1.35), followed by the Oswestry disability score (mean, 15.6; SD, 20; ES, 1.2) and if symptoms were bothersome (mean, 18.1; SD, 22.6; ES, 1.1). Eighteen patients were either “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied,” and 15 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement.

Conclusions: The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients and to obtain their compliance for a full-scale randomized clinical.

Health equity is the principle of ensuring that all individuals have optimal opportunities to attain the best health possible, addressing disparities in access, outcomes, costs, quality, and appropriateness of care. This focus on health equity is important in healthcare research, driven by the need to investigate systemic injustices and foster fair health outcomes for all, regardless of background or circumstances. Researchers have an ethical imperative to focus on issues relevant to populations bearing the highest burdens of illness and inequities. To address the gap in structured guidance for incorporating health equity principles in health-related research, this study aims to introduce a comprehensive health equity checklist developed by the RAND Research Across Complementary and Integrative Health Institutions (REACH) Center. The checklist is designed to ensure that every stage of the research process integrates health equity considerations. RAND, in collaboration with complementary and integrative health academic institutions across the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, developed a health equity checklist. They combed through literature to assess existing guidance and developed the checklist based on gaps in literature and the specific needs identified through consultations with community partners and stakeholders. This checklist emphasizes creating a health equity research culture, involving community partners, designing inclusive research/interventions, securing equitable funding, and engaging diverse participants. It also advocates for equitable intervention delivery, data collection, analysis, and effective dissemination and sustainability of research findings. The health equity checklist provides a practical guide for researchers, community partners, and participants to reflect on inclusivity, cultural relevance, and social justice in health research. By implementing this checklist, researchers can ensure that their studies are both inclusive and impactful in advancing health equity across all areas of health-related research. Achieving health equity in research requires a comprehensive approach and significant investment in building sustainable partnerships. The RAND REACH Center's recommendations provide a guide to ensure research advances scientific understanding while actively contributing to health equity. This paradigm shift necessitates support from funding agencies and a long-term commitment to creating equitable health outcomes.