Search

Objective: We evaluated digital consultations at a University Hospital in Switzerland within an integrative medicine outpatient setting. Patients' and treatment providers' (physicians and therapists) evaluated digital conversation-based consultations as well as the digital delivery of practical exercises. Methods: Digital consultations between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020 were identified. Between June and July 2020, patients and treatment providers completed online questionnaires addressing challenges and advantages of their digital consultations. Both groups documented their satisfaction and working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory). In addition, semistructured qualitative interviews with treatment providers were conducted. Findings: A total of 82 online surveys (response rate 47%) about the digital consultations were available for analyses, with 60 patients correctly identifying at least one treatment provider, and 9 interviews were performed. Patients and treatment providers overall evaluated the new setting of digital consultation as feasible and an efficient consultation format. Interestingly, the working alliance was rated as good. Technical problems were mentioned as the main challenge and the delivery of practical exercises in digital consultations was seen more challenging than having digital conversation-based consultations. Conclusion: Digital consultations were established with overall positive evaluations and with a good working alliance between patients and providers. For the delivery of practical exercises it might be required to develop more innovative digital settings to overcome shortcomings of the digital format. Hybrid settings that combine the best of both settings could be a good option for future in postpandemic times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To report the results of health economic analyses comparing two treatment approaches for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Design: Observational prospective cohort study comparing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CLBP care provided at an integrative care clinic with that provided in other clinics within the same hospital. CLBP-related medical utilization, function, quality of life, and days of work incapacity were self-reported at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Settings/Location: Osher Clinical Center (OCC) based at a tertiary academic hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital [BWH]) and other clinics at BWH. Subjects: CLBP patients seeking care at OCC or non-OCC BWH clinics. Interventions: Integrative or conventional care for CLBP as prescribed by the treating clinician(s). Outcome measures: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated per treatment approach based on the SF-12. Cost per QALY gained was evaluated using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ICERs based on CLBP-specific effectiveness measures (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ] and bothersomeness of pain [BOP]) were exploratory outcomes. Results: Total adjusted annual CLBP-related costs per patient were greater in the OCC versus non-OCC group ($11,526.73 vs. $6,810.63). Between group differences in QALYs were small and ICER estimate of cost per QALY gained was high ($436,676). However, unadjusted mean direct costs per patient decreased over time in the OCC group. Savings in direct costs of $391 (95% confidence interval: −1,078 to 1,861) were observed in the OCC group for the 6- to 12-month period, driven primarily by reduced medication usage. ICERs based on adjusted RDQ and BOP group differences showed cost of $2,073 and $4,203 for a one-point reduction per respective scale. Conclusions: When adjusted for baseline differences, self-reported costs were higher in the OCC group with only small effects on QALYs. However, trends toward decreased direct expenditures and medication usage over time warrant further investigation. Future studies evaluating potential benefits of integrative care models for the management of CLBP should employ randomized designs, longer observational periods, and explore multiple metrics of cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is burdensome and costly, and a common condition for which adults use integrative therapies. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary integrative approaches has not been well studied. The purpose of this observational study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of CLBP patients treated at the Osher Clinical Center (OCC) versus other clinics at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Design: Observational comparative effectiveness study. Setting: Tertiary care hospital. Subjects: Patients ≥21 years with 3+ months of CLBP or 6+ months of intermittent low-back pain. Intervention: All patients were observed for 12 months. OCC patients received care at the integrative clinic (7.3 visits on average over 13 weeks); non-OCC patients received usual care at other clinics of the same hospital. Outcome measures: Primary outcomes: change from baseline to 6 months in functional status (Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and bothersomeness of pain (BOP). Secondary outcomes: change in RDQ and BOP at 3 and 12 months, percentages of patients with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvements. Results: One hundred fifty-six OCC and 153 non-OCC participants were enrolled; follow-up was 90.4 and 98.0%, respectively, at 12 months. There were substantial differences in baseline characteristics between groups. For RDQ, the adjusted mean group difference was nonsignificant at 6 months; for BOP, the differences were significant, but clinically small. At 12 months, the observed benefit on RDQ was significant and clinically meaningful; for BOP, there were significant, but clinically small differences. Percentages of patients with ≥30% improvements in RDQ were significantly greater in the OCC group only at 12 months, and both 6 and 12 months for BOP. Conclusions: Baseline characteristics can differ between those who select different sources of healthcare for CLBP. While benefits seen in the OCC versus non-OCC clinics were not large, further evaluation through randomized trials might be warranted to provide a more definitive evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the available evidence is insufficient, acupuncture is used in patients suffering from chronic asthma. The aim of this pragmatic study was to investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture in addition to routine care in patients with allergic asthma compared to treatment with routine care alone. Methods: Patients with allergic asthma were included in a randomized controlled trial and randomized to receive up to 15 acupuncture sessions over 3 months or to a control group receiving routine care alone. Patients who did not consent to randomization received acupuncture treatment for the first 3 months and were followed as a cohort. All trial patients were allowed to receive routine care in addition to study treatment. The primary endpoint was the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ, range: 1-7) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included general health related to quality of life (Short-Form-36, SF-36, range 0-100). Outcome parameters were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. Results: A total of 1,445 patients (mean age 43.8 [SD 13.5] years, 58.7% female) were randomized and included in the analysis (184 patients randomized to acupuncture and 173 to control, and 1,088 in the nonrandomized acupuncture group). In the randomized part, acupuncture was associated with an improvement in the AQLQ score compared to the control group (difference acupuncture vs. control group 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5-1.0]) as well as in the physical component scale and the mental component scale of the SF-36 (physical: 2.5 [1.0-4.0]; mental 4.0 [2.1-6.0]) after 3 months. Treatment success was maintained throughout 6 months. Patients not consenting to randomization showed similar improvements as the randomized acupuncture group. Conclusions: In patients with allergic asthma, additional acupuncture treatment to routine care was associated with increased disease-specific and health-related quality of life compared to treatment with routine care alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interest in Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) in the international community is growing. A panel titled 'What Can Comparative Effectiveness Research Contribute to Integrative Health in International Perspective?' took place at the 3rd International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Portland, Oregon, in 2012. The presentations at this panel highlighted different perspectives on CER, including the funders' and the stakeholders' perspectives from the United States, as well as experiences with economic evaluations from Australia and pragmatic trials in Europe. The funders' perspective emphasized the need for innovation and controlling costs in large-scale studies. The stakeholder's perspective stressed the need to gather the input of stakeholders in shaping the framework for more informative, more decision-maker-driven research. Several examples of cost-effectiveness analyses were offered from Australia. The importance of balancing rigor and pragmatism was also discussed in a presentation of the efficacy-effectiveness continuum. A wide-ranging discussion explored additional questions concerning the translation of evidence into practice; the effect of pragmatic trials on funding or policy; evidentiary distinctions between and among pragmatic trials and traditional randomized clinical trials; and the multiple roles of stakeholders, particularly in generating new information and knowledge. The presentations and discussions showed that more development of methods is needed. This includes developments on study design and statistical approaches, as well as methods for stakeholder involvement and mechanisms to bring these results into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the needs of cancer patients, two things are important: (1) oncology physicians and other health professionals in cancer care should receive training so that they can guide their patients through the maze of available offers in complementary and integrative medicine (CIM), and (2) more CIM providers should possess competencies to provide evidence-informed CIM treatments to cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]