Exploring integrative medicine for back and neck pain - a pragmatic randomised clinical pilot trial

Tobias Sundberg, Max Petzold, Per Wändell, Anna Rydén, Torkel Falkenberg, Tobias Sundberg, Max Petzold, Per Wändell, Anna Rydén, Torkel Falkenberg

Abstract

Background: A model for integrative medicine (IM) adapted to Swedish primary care was previously developed. The aim of this 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. Specific 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.

Methods: Eighty patients with back/neck pain of at least two weeks duration were randomised to the two types of care. Outcome measures were standardised health related quality of life (the eight domains of SF-36) complemented by a set of exploratory "IM tailored" outcomes targeting self-rated disability, stress and well-being (0-10 scales); days in pain (0-14); and the use of analgesics and health care over the last two weeks (yes/no). Data on clinical management were derived from medical records. Outcome changes from baseline to follow-up after 16 weeks were used to explore the differences between the groups.

Results: Seventy-five percent (80/107) of screened patients in general practice were eligible and feasible to enroll into the trial. Eighty-two percent (36/44) of the integrative and 75% (27/36) of the conventional care group completed follow-up after 16 weeks. Most patients had back/neck pain of at least three months duration. Conventional care typically comprised advice and prescription of analgesics, occasionally complemented with sick leave or a written referral to physiotherapy. IM care generally integrated seven treatment sessions from two different types of complementary therapies with conventional care over ten weeks. The study was underpowered to detect any statistically significant differences between the groups. One SF-36 domain showed a clinically relevant difference between groups that was also supported by a small distribution based effect size, i.e. vitality (-7.3 points, Cohen's d -0.34) which was in favour of IM. There was a clinical trend between groups showing that IM contributed to less use of prescription and non-prescription analgesics (-11.7 and - 9.7 percent units respectively) compared to conventional care. Exploring clinically relevant differences and the SF-36 as the basis for a main outcome measure showed that the sample sizes needed per arm to adequately power a full-scale trial depended on the target domain, i.e. ranging from 60 (vitality) to 339 (role emotion).

Conclusion: This pilot study investigated the implementation of IM in the primary care management of non-specific back and neck pain. Recruiting patients and implementing IM in routine clinical practice was feasible. The results warrant further exploration into different perspectives and relevant combinations of outcome measures including the use of health resources, drugs and cost-effectiveness to help understand the relevance of IM in primary care. Future research should prioritize larger scale studies considering variability, pain duration and small to moderate treatment effects.

Trial registration: Clinical trials NCT00565942.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow-chart. The flow of patients through the randomised clinical trial (CONSORT flow-chart).

References

    1. Hanssen B, Grimsgaard S, Launso L, Fonnebo V, Falkenberg T, Rasmussen NK. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in the Scandinavian countries. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2005;23:57–62. doi: 10.1080/02813430510018419.
    1. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. Jama. 1998;280:1569–1575. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.18.1569.
    1. Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005;11:42–49.
    1. Barrett B, Marchand L, Scheder J, Plane MB, Maberry R, Appelbaum D, Rakel D, Rabago D. Themes of holism, empowerment, access, and legitimacy define complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in relation to conventional biomedicine. Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, NY) 2003;9:937–947. doi: 10.1089/107555303771952271.
    1. Cohen MM, Penman S, Pirotta M, Da Costa C. The integration of complementary therapies in Australian general practice: results of a national survey. Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, NY) 2005;11:995–1004. doi: 10.1089/acm.2005.11.995.
    1. Frenkel MA, Borkan JM. An approach for integrating complementary-alternative medicine into primary care. Fam Pract. 2003;20:324–332. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg315.
    1. Landstingsförbundet . Den komplementära medicinens utbredning och tillämpning inom landets landsting. Örebro: Repro, Örebro Universitet; 2001.
    1. Paterson C, Peacock W. Complementary practitioners as part of the primary health care team: evaluation of one model. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:255–258.
    1. Sipkoff M. Steadily, plans increase coverage of unorthodox medical therapies. Manag Care. 2005;14:59–60.
    1. Sturm R, Unutzer J. State legislation and the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Inquiry. 2000;37:423–429.
    1. Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Phillips RS. Insurance coverage, medical conditions, and visits to alternative medicine providers: results of a national survey. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:281–287. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.3.281.
    1. Boon H, Verhoef M, O'Hara D, Findlay B. From parallel practice to integrative health care: a conceptual framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:15. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-15.
    1. Fonnebo V, Grimsgaard S, Walach H, Ritenbaugh C, Norheim AJ, MacPherson H, Lewith G, Launso L, Koithan M, Falkenberg T, et al. Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-7.
    1. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Expanding horizons of health care. Strategic Plan 2005-2009. Bethesda, Maryland: NCCAM, National Institutes of Health; 2004.
    1. Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin R. National Health Statistics Reports 12. Hyattsville. MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2008. Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults and Children: United States, 2007.
    1. Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. Adv Data. 2004:1–19.
    1. Ekman M, Johnell O, Lidgren L. The economic cost of low back pain in Sweden in 2001. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:275–284.
    1. Ekman M, Jonhagen S, Hunsche E, Jonsson L. Burden of illness of chronic low back pain in Sweden: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in primary care setting. Spine. 2005;30:1777–1785. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000171911.99348.90.
    1. Eisenberg DM, Post DE, Davis RB, Connelly MT, Legedza AT, Hrbek AL, Prosser LA, Buring JE, Inui TS, Cherkin DC. Addition of choice of complementary therapies to usual care for acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32:151–158. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000252697.07214.65.
    1. Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, Lewith G, Jonas WB. Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:29. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-29.
    1. Sundberg T, Halpin J, Warenmark A, Falkenberg T. Towards a model for integrative medicine in Swedish primary care. BMC health services research. 2007;7:107. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-107.
    1. Medborgarstatistik
    1. VISS - Vårdinformation StorStockholm, handläggning vid sjukdomar
    1. Field T, Hernandez-Reif M, Diego M, Schanberg S, Kuhn C. Cortisol decreases and serotonin and dopamine increase following massage therapy. Int J Neurosci. 2005;115:1397–1413. doi: 10.1080/00207450590956459.
    1. Furlan AD, Imamura M, Dryden T, Irvin E. Massage for low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:CD001929.
    1. Hsieh LL, Kuo CH, Lee LH, Yen AM, Chien KL, Chen TH. Treatment of low back pain by acupressure and physical therapy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2006;332:696–700. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, Velde G van der, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Cote P, Hogg-Johnson S, et al. Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine. 2008;33:S123–152. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d.
    1. Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith C, Santaguida PL, Hoving J, Bronfort G. Exercises for mechanical neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005:CD004250.
    1. Skillgate E, Vingard E, Alfredsson L. Naprapathic manual therapy or evidence-based care for back and neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Pain. 2007;23:431–439. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31805593d8.
    1. Furlan AD, van Tulder MW, Cherkin DC, Tsukayama H, Lao L, Koes BW, Berman BM. Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005:CD001351.
    1. Trinh KV, Graham N, Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, Wang E, Cameron ID, Kay T. Acupuncture for neck disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD004870.
    1. Yuan J, Purepong N, Kerr DP, Park J, Bradbury I, McDonough S. Effectiveness of acupuncture for low back pain: a systematic review. Spine. 2008;33:E887–900. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318186b276.
    1. Lansinger B, Larsson E, Persson LC, Carlsson JY. Qigong and exercise therapy in patients with long-term neck pain: a prospective randomized trial. Spine. 2007;32:2415–2422. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181573b4b.
    1. Persson LO, Karlsson J, Bengtsson C, Steen B, Sullivan M. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey II. Evaluation of clinical validity: results from population studies of elderly and women in Gothenborg. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1095–1103. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00101-2.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1105–1113. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00102-4.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE., Jr The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey--I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1349–1358. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00125-Q.
    1. Bolton JE, Breen AC. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:503–510. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70001-1.
    1. Bolton JE, Humphreys BK. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. II. Psychometric properties in neck pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25:141–148. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2002.123333.
    1. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50:133–149. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90154-4.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Taft C. SF-36 Hälsoenkät: Svensk manual och tolkningsguide, 2:a upplagan. Göteborg: Sahgrenska University Hospital; 2002. Appendix F.
    1. Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. 7:9-7. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute; 1993. p. 15.
    1. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.
    1. Anderson R. A case study in integrative medicine: alternative theories and the language of biomedicine. J Altern Complement Med. 1999;5:165–173. doi: 10.1089/acm.1999.5.165. discussion 175-166.
    1. Caspi O, Bell IR, Rychener D, Gaudet TW, Weil AT. The Tower of Babel: communication and medicine: An essay on medical education and complementary-alternative medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3193–3195. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.21.3193.
    1. Tramer MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, McQuay HJ. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain. 2000;85:169–182. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00267-5.
    1. Hernandez-Diaz S, Garcia-Rodriguez LA. Epidemiologic assessment of the safety of conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med. 2001;110:20S–27S. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00682-3.
    1. Paterson C, Baarts C, Launso L, Verhoef M. Evaluating complex health interventions: a critical analysis of the 'outcomes' concept. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009;9:18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-9-18.
    1. Long AF. The potential of complementary and alternative medicine in promoting well-being and critical health literacy: a prospective, observational study of shiatsu. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2009;9:19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-9-19.
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Bmj. 2000;321:694–696. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694.
    1. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-Based Healthcare. How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions. 2. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2001.
    1. World Health Organization . National policy on traditional medicine and regulation of herbal medicines. Report of a WHO global survey. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir