Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Although most pain is acute and resolves within a few days or weeks, millions of Americans have persistent or recurring pain that may become chronic and debilitating. Medications may provide only partial relief from this chronic pain and can be associated with unwanted effects. As a result, many individuals turn to complementary health approaches as part of their pain management strategy. This article examines the clinical trial evidence for the efficacy and safety of several specific approaches-acupuncture, manipulation, massage therapy, relaxation techniques including meditation, selected natural product supplements (chondroitin, glucosamine, methylsulfonylmethane, S-adenosylmethionine), tai chi, and yoga-as used to manage chronic pain and related disability associated with back pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, neck pain, and severe headaches or migraines.

SUBMITTER: Nahin RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5032142 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.

Nahin Richard L RL Boineau Robin R Khalsa Partap S PS Stussman Barbara J BJ Weber Wendy J WJ

Mayo Clinic proceedings 20160901 9

Although most pain is acute and resolves within a few days or weeks, millions of Americans have persistent or recurring pain that may become chronic and debilitating. Medications may provide only partial relief from this chronic pain and can be associated with unwanted effects. As a result, many individuals turn to complementary health approaches as part of their pain management strategy. This article examines the clinical trial evidence for the efficacy and safety of several specific approaches ...[more]

PMID: 27594189

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To examine the reasons why office-based physicians do or do not recommend four selected complementary health approaches to their patients in the context of the Andersen Behavioral Model. Design: Descriptive estimates of physician-level data from the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) Physician Induction Interview, a nationally representative survey of office-based physicians (N = 5622, weighted response rate = 59.7%). Setting/Location: The United States. Outcome measures: Reasons for the recommendation or lack thereof to patients for: herbs and other non-vitamin supplements, chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation, acupuncture, and mind-body therapies (including meditation, guided imagery, and progressive relaxation). Differences by physician sex and medical specialty were described. Results: For each of the four complementary health approaches, more than half of the physicians who made recommendations indicated that they were influenced by scientific evidence in peer-reviewed journals (ranging from 52.0% for chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation [95% confidence interval, CI = 47.6-56.3] to 71.3% for herbs and other non-vitamin supplements [95% CI = 66.9-75.4]). More than 60% of all physicians recommended each of the four complementary health approaches because of patient requests. A higher percentage of female physicians reported evidence in peer-reviewed journals as a rationale for recommending herbs and non-vitamin supplements or chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation when compared with male physicians (herbs and non-vitamin supplements: 78.8% [95% CI = 72.4-84.3] vs. 66.6% [95% CI = 60.8-72.2]; chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation: 62.3% [95% CI = 54.7-69.4] vs. 47.5% [95% CI = 42.3-52.7]). For each of the four complementary health approaches, a lack of perceived benefit was the most frequently reported reason by both sexes for not recommending. Lack of information sources was reported more often by female versus male physicians as a reason to not recommend herbs and non-vitamin supplements (31.4% [95% CI = 26.8-36.3] vs. 23.4% [95% CI = 21.0-25.9]). Conclusions: There are limited nationally representative data on the reasons as to why office-based physicians decide to recommend complementary health approaches to patients. Developing a more nuanced understanding of influencing factors in physicians' decision making regarding complementary health approaches may better inform researchers and educators, and aid physicians in making evidence-based recommendations for patients.

Project description:ObjectivesLittle is known about patterns and correlates of Complementary Health Approaches (CHAs) in chronic pain populations, particularly in rural, underserved communities. This article details the development and implementation of a new survey instrument designed to address this gap, the Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Survey (CHAPS).DesignFollowing pilot-testing using pre-specified criteria to assess quality and comprehension in our target population, and after feedback regarding face-validity from content experts and stakeholders, the final cross-sectional self-report survey required 10-12 minutes to complete. It contained 69 demographic, lifestyle and health-related factors, and utilized a Transtheoretical Model (TTM) underpinning to assess short- and long-term use of 12 CHAs for pain management. Twenty additional items on pain severity, feelings, clinical outcomes, and activities were assessed using the Short-Form Global Pain Scale (SF-GPS); Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha.Settings/locationInvestigators conducted consecutive sampling in four West Virginia pain management and rheumatology practices.Participants301 Appalachian adult patients seeking conventional care for pain management.ResultsResponse rates were high (88% ± 4.1%). High quality and comprehension deemed the CHAPS an appropriate measurement tool in a rural population with pain. Missing data were unrelated to patient characteristics. Participants predominantly experienced chronic pain (93%), had five or more health conditions (56%, Mean = 5.4±3.1), were white (92%), female (57%), and middle-aged (Mean = 55.6 (SD = 13.6) years). Over 40% were disabled (43%) and/or obese (44%, Mean BMI = 33.4±31.5). Additionally, 44% used opioids, 31% used other prescription medications, and 66% used at least one CHA for pain, with 48% using CHAs for greater than 6 months. There was high internal reliability of the SF-GPS (alpha = .93) and satisfactory internal reliability for each of the five TTM stages across (all) twelve CHAs: precontemplation (0.89), contemplation (0.72), preparation (0.75), action (0.70), and maintenance (0.70).ConclusionsThe CHAPS is the first comprehensive measurement tool to assess CHA use specifically for pain management. Ease of administration in a population with pain support further use in population- and clinic-based studies in similar populations.

Dataset Information

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.

Publications

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Management in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets