Exploring Integrative Medicine in Swedish Primary Care

October 27, 2020 updated by: Torkel Falkenberg, Karolinska Institutet

Exploring Integrative Medicine for Back and Neck Pain - A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Pilot Trial

Research over the last years have reported an increased popularity of complementary therapies (CTs) and an integration of CTs into mainstream medical settings, health care organizations and insurance plans. These trends may present both new challenges and new opportunities for health care provision. In Sweden and elsewhere, major challenges include the great variety and quality of CT provision within health care and a lack of national and international recommendations of how integrations of CTs with conventional care should be modelled, i.e. lack of conceptual models for delivering integrative medicine (IM). This may partly be a result of a scarce evidence base in support of IM provision within public health care services, e.g. lack of IM compared to usual care in randomised clinical trials. It remains largely unknown whether comprehensive models of IM are clinically or cost effectively different from conventional care provision.

Back and neck pain are costly, conventionally managed in primary care and two of the most common conditions treated by CTs. We have developed a comprehensive collaborative consensus model for IM adapted to Swedish primary care. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the feasibility of a pragmatic randomised clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the IM model versus conventional primary care in the management of patients with non-specific back/neck pain.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Study objectives included the exploration of recruitment and retention rates, patient and care characteristics, clinical differences and effect sizes between groups, selected outcome measures and power calculations to inform the basis of a full-scale trial.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

80

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Huddinge, Sweden, 141 83
        • Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 65 years (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Back/neck pain with or without headache for at least two weeks and at least three times per week
  • Resident of Stockholm County
  • Literate in Swedish
  • Willing and able to comply with study requirements

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Specific pathology and severe causes of back/neck pain such as malignant disease, vertebral fractures and severe or progressive neurological symptoms.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Usual care
Treatment as usual coordinated by general practitioners in primary care.
The usual care treatment was coordinated by the patient's general practitioner and complied with the clinical practice routines at the participating primary care units. Conventional procedures included but were not exclusive to advice, prescription of drugs, sick leave and physiotherapy/physical therapy. There were no constraints to the provided usual care as the study aimed to pragmatically reflect the general practitioners' standard care and treatment as usual.
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Integrative care
Selected complementary therapies (Swedish massage therapy, manual therapy/naprapathy, shiatsu, acupuncture and qigong) added to usual care.
In short, integrative care was up to 10 complementary therapy treatments delivered to the patient in addition to the usual care over an intervention period of up to 12 weeks. The integrative care was provided by a multidisciplinary team coordinated by a gate keeping general practitioner with clinical knowledge and experience of CTs and senior licensed/certified CT providers representing Swedish massage therapy, manual therapy/naprapathy, shiatsu, acupuncture and qigong.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Days with pain
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Number of days with pain over the last two weeks (0-14 days)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Physical functioning
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Role physical
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Bodily pain
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
General health
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Vitality
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Social functioning
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Role emotional
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Mental health
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
SF-36 domain 0-100 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Disability
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Numerical rating scale 0-10 (higher score worse)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Stress
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Numerical rating scale 0-10 (higher score worse)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Well-being
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Numerical rating scale 0-10 (higher score better)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of prescription analgesics
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of prescription analgesics during the last two weeks (yes/no)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of non-prescription analgesics
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of non-prescription analgesics during the last two weeks (yes/no)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of conventional care
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of conventional care during the last two weeks (yes/no)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of complementary care
Time Frame: Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks
Use of complementary care during the last two weeks (yes/no)
Change from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Recruitment of patients
Time Frame: At baseline
Number of included patients at baseline
At baseline
Retention of patients
Time Frame: After 16 weeks
Number of patients completing follow-up after 16 weeks
After 16 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Torkel Falkenberg, PhD, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

September 1, 2004

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

November 1, 2007

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

November 1, 2007

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 28, 2007

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 28, 2007

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

November 30, 2007

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

October 29, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 27, 2020

Last Verified

October 1, 2020

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Back or Neck Pain of at Least 2 Weeks Duration

Clinical Trials on Usual care

3
Subscribe