OBJECTIVES: The goal of this research was to provide insight into the full range of meaningful outcomes experienced by patients who participate in clinical trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. DESIGN: Data for this study were assembled from five randomized trials evaluating six different CAM treatments for back pain. A conventional qualitative content analysis was conducted on responses to open-ended questions asked at the end of telephone interviews assessing treatment outcomes. SUBJECTS: A total of 884 study participants who received CAM therapies completed post-treatment interviews. Of these, 327 provided qualitative data used in the analyses. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a range of positive outcomes that participants in CAM trials considered important but were not captured by standard quantitative outcome measures. Positive outcome themes included increased options and hope, increased ability to relax, positive changes in emotional states, increased body awareness, changes in thinking that increased the ability to cope with back pain, increased sense of well-being, improvement in physical conditions unrelated to back pain, increased energy, increased patient activation, and dramatic improvements in health or well-being. The first five of these themes were mentioned for all of the CAM treatments, while others tended to be more treatment specific. A small fraction of these effects were considered life transforming. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that standard measures used to assess the outcomes of CAM treatments fail to capture the full range of outcomes that are important to patients. In order to capture the full impact of CAM therapies, future trials should include a broader range of outcomes measures.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this research was to provide insight into the full range of meaningful outcomes experienced by patients who participate in clinical trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. DESIGN: Data for this study were assembled from five randomized trials evaluating six different CAM treatments for back pain. A conventional qualitative content analysis was conducted on responses to open-ended questions asked at the end of telephone interviews assessing treatment outcomes. SUBJECTS: A total of 884 study participants who received CAM therapies completed post-treatment interviews. Of these, 327 provided qualitative data used in the analyses. RESULTS: Our analysis identified a range of positive outcomes that participants in CAM trials considered important but were not captured by standard quantitative outcome measures. Positive outcome themes included increased options and hope, increased ability to relax, positive changes in emotional states, increased body awareness, changes in thinking that increased the ability to cope with back pain, increased sense of well-being, improvement in physical conditions unrelated to back pain, increased energy, increased patient activation, and dramatic improvements in health or well-being. The first five of these themes were mentioned for all of the CAM treatments, while others tended to be more treatment specific. A small fraction of these effects were considered life transforming. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that standard measures used to assess the outcomes of CAM treatments fail to capture the full range of outcomes that are important to patients. In order to capture the full impact of CAM therapies, future trials should include a broader range of outcomes measures.
Authors: Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Marja Verhoef; Susan Fleishman; Heather Boon; Ann Leis Journal: Altern Ther Health Med Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.305
Authors: Iris R Bell; Opher Caspi; Gary E R Schwartz; Kathryn L Grant; Tracy W Gaudet; David Rychener; Victoria Maizes; Andrew Weil Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-01-28
Authors: Rebecca Erwin Wells; Catherine Kerr; Michelle L Dossett; Suzanne C Danhauer; Stephanie J Sohl; Bonnie C Sachs; Jacquelyn Walsh Feeley; Jennifer Wolkin; Robert Wall; Ted Kaptchuk; Daniel Z Press; Russell S Phillips; Gloria Y Yeh Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Jennifer J Thompson; Kimberly L Kelly; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Allison L Hopkins; Colette M Sims; Stephen J Coons Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Mimi Nichter; Mark A Nichter; Kimberly L Kelly; Colette M Sims; Iris R Bell; Heide M Castañeda; Charles R Elder; Mary S Koithan; Elizabeth G Sutherland; Marja J Verhoef; Sarah L Warber; Stephen J Coons Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Wolf E Mehling; Cynthia Price; Jennifer J Daubenmier; Mike Acree; Elizabeth Bartmess; Anita Stewart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hugh MacPherson; Helen E Tilbrook; Stewart J Richmond; Karl Atkin; Kathleen Ballard; Martin Bland; Janet Eldred; Holly N Essex; Ann Hopton; Harriet Lansdown; Usman Muhammad; Steve Parrott; David Torgerson; Aniela Wenham; Julia Woodman; Ian Watt Journal: Trials Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 2.279