Taeho Greg Rhee1, Brent D Leininger2, Neha Ghildayal3, Roni L Evans2, Jeffery A Dusek4, Pamela Jo Johnson5. 1. Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, Academic Health Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. Electronic address: rhee0041@umn.edu. 2. Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, Academic Health Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Division of Health Policy & Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 4. Penny George Institute of Health and Healing, Allina Health, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 5. Integrative Health & Wellbeing Research Program, Center for Spirituality & Healing, Academic Health Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Division of Health Policy & Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) is commonly used to treat low back pain (LBP). While the use of CIH within hospitals is increasing, little is known regarding the delivery of these services within inpatient settings. We examine the patterns of CIH services among inpatients with mechanical LBP in a hospital setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective, practice-based study conducted at Abbot Northwestern hospital in Minnesota. Using electronic health record data from July 2009 to December 2012, 8095 inpatients with mechanical LBP were identified using ICD-9 codes. We classified patients by reason for hospitalization. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics by receipt of CIH services. Then, we estimated the prevalence of types of CIH delivered and clinical foci for CIH visits among inpatients with mechanical LBP. RESULTS: Most inpatients with mechanical LBP (>90%) were hospitalized for surgical procedures. Overall, 14.2% received inpatient CIH services. All demographic and clinical characteristics differed by receipt of CIH (P<0.001), except race/ethnicity. CIH recipients were in poorer health than those who did not. Most commonly delivered CIH services were massage (62.1%), relaxation techniques (42.0%) and acupuncture (25.7%). Pain (45.1%), relaxation (17.5%), and comfort (8.2%) were the top three reasons for CIH visits. CONCLUSION: There are important differences between CIH recipients and non-CIH recipients among patients with mechanical LBP within a hospital setting. The reasons documented for CIH visits included addressing physical, emotional and/or mental conditions of patients. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of CIH services health and wellbeing outcomes in this population.
OBJECTIVES: Complementary and integrative healthcare (CIH) is commonly used to treat low back pain (LBP). While the use of CIH within hospitals is increasing, little is known regarding the delivery of these services within inpatient settings. We examine the patterns of CIH services among inpatients with mechanical LBP in a hospital setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective, practice-based study conducted at Abbot Northwestern hospital in Minnesota. Using electronic health record data from July 2009 to December 2012, 8095 inpatients with mechanical LBP were identified using ICD-9 codes. We classified patients by reason for hospitalization. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics by receipt of CIH services. Then, we estimated the prevalence of types of CIH delivered and clinical foci for CIH visits among inpatients with mechanical LBP. RESULTS: Most inpatients with mechanical LBP (>90%) were hospitalized for surgical procedures. Overall, 14.2% received inpatient CIH services. All demographic and clinical characteristics differed by receipt of CIH (P<0.001), except race/ethnicity. CIH recipients were in poorer health than those who did not. Most commonly delivered CIH services were massage (62.1%), relaxation techniques (42.0%) and acupuncture (25.7%). Pain (45.1%), relaxation (17.5%), and comfort (8.2%) were the top three reasons for CIH visits. CONCLUSION: There are important differences between CIH recipients and non-CIH recipients among patients with mechanical LBP within a hospital setting. The reasons documented for CIH visits included addressing physical, emotional and/or mental conditions of patients. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of CIH services health and wellbeing outcomes in this population.
Authors: Manuela L Ferreira; Gustavo Machado; Jane Latimer; Christopher Maher; Paulo H Ferreira; Rob J Smeets Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2009-12-24 Impact factor: 3.931
Authors: Lindsey C McKernan; Michael T M Finn; David R Patterson; Rhonda M Williams; Mark P Jensen Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.579