Text

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.

Objective: 
Collaboration between complementary and integrative health (CIH) institutions and research-intensive (R1) institutions has been successfully undertaken in the United States, resulting in federally funded research projects, educational programs, and faculty development. The aim of this cross-sectional survey study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to establishing and maintaining such collaborative partnerships.

Methods: A 32-question survey was sent to participants recruited through author contacts and resources, literature review, and database searches. Participants were required to be researchers and affiliates who attempted, completed, or had current collaborative endeavors involving CIH and R1 institutions. Data were collected in the research electronic data capture (REDCap) system and descriptive quantitative and qualitative data analysis was undertaken.

Results: A total of 26 unique entries were included in the final data analysis; four of which were paired entries (one from an R1 institution and one from a CIH institution) to make up two dyad data collections. Eighty-one percent of the participants had senior leadership roles at CIH institutions representing five CIH disciplines—East Asian medicine (acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine), chiropractic medicine, massage therapy, naturopathy, and yoga. Collaborative research projects were often (>38%) in response to specific project funding mechanisms. Over 60% of the collaborations also included educational activities and faculty development. Collaborations resulted in multiple different types of benefits to both institutions but were not without associated challenges.

Conclusion: Collaborations between R1 and CIH institutions can be cooperative, productive, and mutually beneficial. Funding mechanisms supporting R1 and CIH collaboration increase CIH research productivity as well as the development of innovative research methodology to study the real-world practice of CIH therapies, whole systems, and whole person health. CIH researchers would greatly benefit from such funding, allowing access to research infrastructure, professional development, and the provision of protected time to conduct research.

Background: Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.

Methods: This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.

Results: From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65–81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0–10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.

Conclusion: We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.

Description: The book briefly covers the history and development of acupuncture, including the role that acupuncture techniques may have in treating patients. It explores various acupuncture and moxibustion techniques and presents a concern about the perceived limitations of acupuncture technique training in the West. The structural elements used are not unique.

Purpose: The book explores the history and development of acupuncture and moxibustion. It places more emphasis on the role of various acupuncture techniques, and this covers them in more depth. While the book states that one objective is to understand the limitations of acupuncture technique training in the West, there is little empirical support presented for the claims of these limitations.

Audience: The book's audience is clinicians who utilize acupuncture on patients. It is intended to improve the effectiveness of acupuncture as well as promote the discipline. The book covers a wide variety of acupuncture techniques, though the depth of coverage varies considerably. The credentials of the authors indicate that they are recognized experts in their field.

Features: The book presents a wide variety of acupuncture, moxibustion, and cupping techniques. Some methods are covered in more detail than others. This often leads to a cursory introduction to techniques rather than a presentation to teach clinicians new techniques of which they are unaware. The writing is generally clear and well-presented. The book includes illustrations and photographs of these presentations, but some are presented in more detail than others. More illustrations in some areas would be beneficial. There is no index. The book claims that Western training in acupuncture techniques is limited and has several areas of weakness, but support for these claims is minimal.

Assessment: This book is of good quality and effectively exposes readers to various acupuncture techniques. It covers a wider variety of techniques than similar texts but goes into less detail on some methods than others. In that regard, it is a handy tool for exposing clinicians to techniques they may not have mastered, but it is less successful in training them to use those techniques. It covers some situations and disorders for which techniques presented may be helpful but only covers some conditions, though that would be beyond the scope of a book of this size.