The APPROACH Study (Assessing Pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complementary and Integrative Health) assesses the effects of use of practitioner-delivered CIH therapies alone compared to the combination of self-care and practitioner-delivered CIH therapies among Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain. The APPROACH study is predominately conducting a secondary analysis of patient-reported data being collected by the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural Transformation among Veterans receiving care at one of 18 VA medical centers. Those 18 facilities received funding to expand availability of CIH therapies as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. That patient-reported data is being supplemented with VA electronic health record data and data on the 18 medical centers' business practices (nudges, the instrumental variable). Practitioner-delivered therapies under study include chiropractic care, acupuncture, and therapeutic massage; self-care therapies include Tai Chi/Qigong, yoga, and meditation. The primary outcomes are improvement in pain severity and pain interference, assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), six months after initiating CIH therapies compared to baseline. Patients will enter treatment groups based on the CIH therapies they use, as randomizing patients to specific therapies would require withholding therapies routinely offered at VA. The investigators will address selection bias and confounding by using sites' variations in business practices and other encouragements (nudges) to receiving different CIH therapies as a surrogate for direct randomization using instrumental variables econometric methods.
Design: The investigators are employing a quasi-experimental encouragement study design in which subjects are able to choose their own CIH therapies, but some are offered extra encouragements (nudges) to choose specific CIH therapies. Instead of being randomized to a CIH therapy, individuals will enter one of three study groups - Veterans Using Practitioner Delivered CIH Therapies Only, Veterans Using Self-Care CIH Therapies Only, or Veterans Using a Combination of Practitioner-Delivered and Self-Care CIH Therapies (Dual-Care) - based on what CIH therapies they used six months after they initiate any CIH therapy. Although accrual to study group is not random, some sites have strong business practices/nudges that lead to considerable variation in which CIH therapies patients use. The variation induced by these business practices/nudges provides a quasi-experimental natural experiment that can be assessed through an instrumental variables analytic approach. The purpose of using business practices as an instrument for accruing patients to treatment groups, similar to the use of randomization, is to reduce potential selection and confounding bias. The six-month treatment window will allow for patients to initiate one type of CIH therapy and add additional CIH therapies based on business practices/nudges at their site within the evaluation period. The CIH therapies that patients receive will be as they are delivered by the 18 VHA Whole Health flagship study sites and community care practices. The APPROACH study was initially envisioned to examine primary and secondary outcomes for the above-named three study groups. Due to the study's pragmatic design and sampling approach, the sample size of the Veterans Using Self-Care CIH Therapies Only group did not meet the minimum threshold necessary to detect between-group differences of interest. It was therefore determined that study revisions would be necessary. Sites: The study sites are the VA's 18 Whole Health Flagship sites: VA Boston Health Care System, VA New Jersey Health Care System, Erie VAMC, Beckley VAMC, W. G. (Bill) Hefner VAMC, Atlanta VAMC, Tampa VAMC, Tennessee Valley Health Care System, Aleda E. Lutz VAMC, Tomah VAMC, St. Louis VA Health Care System, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, Salt Lake City VAMC, VA Portland Health Care System, Palo Alto VAMC, Tucson VAMC, VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System). Secondary Data from the VA Office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural Transformation's Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey: The APPROACH study is predominately conducting a secondary analysis of patient-reported data being collected by VA OPCC\&CT's four timepoint survey (baseline and months 1, 3, 6). Almost all of the outcomes listed below are from that survey.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
3,603
Practitioner-delivered CIH therapies (acupuncture, therapeutic massage, chiropractic care) as received in VHA and community practice settings
Combination of practitioner-delivered (acupuncture, therapeutic massage, chiropractic care) and self-care (Tai Chi/Qigong, yoga, meditation) CIH therapies as received in VHA and community practice settings
Veterans using self-care (yoga, meditation, Tai Chi, Qi Gong) CIH therapies only, as received in VHA and community practice settings
VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Sepulveda, CA
Sepulveda, California, United States
VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Seattle, WA
Seattle, Washington, United States
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Severity Scale
Measure of pain severity. Scores range from 0-10, with higher scores indicating more severe pain.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Interference Scale
Measure of pain-related functional interference. Scores range from 0-10, with higher scores indicating greater pain-related functional interference.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for Improvement in Pain
Single-item scale which assesses how much a patient perceives their pain has improved following a specified intervention. Item rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being "much better" and 5 being "much worse". Higher scores represent worse pain outcomes following the specified intervention.
Time frame: 6 months
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for Improvement in Mental Health
Single-item scale which assesses how much a patient perceives their mental health has improved following a specified intervention. Item rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being "much better" and 5 being "much worse". Higher scores represent worse mental health outcomes following the specified intervention.
Time frame: 6 months
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for Improvement in Fatigue
Single-item scale which assesses how much a patient perceives their fatigue has improved following a specified intervention. Item rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being "much better" and 5 being "much worse". Higher scores represent worse fatigue outcomes following the specified intervention.
Time frame: 6 months
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for Improvement in Overall Well-being
Single-item scale which assesses how much a patient perceives their overall well-being has improved following a specified intervention. Item rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being "much better" and 5 being "much worse". Higher scores represent worse overall well-being outcomes following the specified intervention.
Time frame: 6 months
PROMIS10 Global Assessment of Physical Health
Assesses physical function, fatigue, pain, and social health; score derived from the PROMIS10 Global Health measure which assesses physical and mental health and generates two summary scores: Global Physical Health and Global Mental Health. Scores are reported on a T-score metric wherein the mean score of the general population is standardized to 50 with a standard deviation of 10. A score of 50 indicates average physical health, as compared to the general population. Higher scores indicate better physical health.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
PROMIS10 Global Assessment of Mental Health
Assesses emotional distress and mental health; score derived from the PROMIS10 Global Health measure which assesses physical and mental health and generates two summary scores: Global Physical Health and Global Mental Health. Scores are reported on a T-score metric wherein the mean score of the general population is standardized to 50 with a standard deviation of 10. A score of 50 indicates average mental health, as compared to the general population. Higher scores indicate better mental health.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
Life Engagement Test (LET)
6 items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Scores range from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating better life engagement/purpose in life.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4)
Measure of perceived stress consisting of 4 items which are each rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 to 4. Scores range from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ2)
Measure of depressed mood and anhedonia consisting of 2 items which are each rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 to 6. Scores range from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms.
Time frame: Change from baseline to 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.