OBJECTIVES: Use of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies is being promoted by the Veterans Health Administration (VA), but promotion may not equate to adoption. The purpose of this study was to explore whether perceptions regarding CIH at one VA medical center (VAMC) were similar to perceptions from a sample of other VAMCs. DESIGN: This article reports a subset of qualitative findings from a mixed-methods study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sites were recruited through a VA-wide CIH listserver. On the basis of site description (e.g., therapies offered, interest in CIH), sustained site interest, and geographic location, recorded interviews of 22 persons were conducted at 6 sites across the country. OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviewees were asked the same questions as the single-site VAMC study respondents. RESULTS: Variable access to CIH services across the VA created the need for workarounds. Multiple barriers (e.g., limited space and challenging credentialing) and facilitators (e.g., strong champion and high veteran demand) were cited. Respondents described nonpharmacologic pain control, the usefulness in treating mental health and/or post-traumatic stress disorder issues, and improvement of staff morale as additional reasons to promote CIH. Findings confirmed those from the earlier single-site VAMC phase of the study. Even the highest-performing sites reported struggling to meet veterans' demands for delivery of CIH. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of active-duty military personnel report the use of at least one type of CIH therapy. As active-duty personnel transition to veteran status, both their physical and mental healthcare needs can potentially benefit from CIH therapies. The VA must actively support local enthusiastic CIH proponents and receive congressional support if it is to actually meet its stated goal of providing personalized, proactive, patient-driven healthcare through the promotion of comprehensive CIH services to veterans.
OBJECTIVES: Use of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies is being promoted by the Veterans Health Administration (VA), but promotion may not equate to adoption. The purpose of this study was to explore whether perceptions regarding CIH at one VA medical center (VAMC) were similar to perceptions from a sample of other VAMCs. DESIGN: This article reports a subset of qualitative findings from a mixed-methods study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sites were recruited through a VA-wide CIH listserver. On the basis of site description (e.g., therapies offered, interest in CIH), sustained site interest, and geographic location, recorded interviews of 22 persons were conducted at 6 sites across the country. OUTCOME MEASURES: Interviewees were asked the same questions as the single-site VAMC study respondents. RESULTS: Variable access to CIH services across the VA created the need for workarounds. Multiple barriers (e.g., limited space and challenging credentialing) and facilitators (e.g., strong champion and high veteran demand) were cited. Respondents described nonpharmacologic pain control, the usefulness in treating mental health and/or post-traumatic stress disorder issues, and improvement of staff morale as additional reasons to promote CIH. Findings confirmed those from the earlier single-site VAMC phase of the study. Even the highest-performing sites reported struggling to meet veterans' demands for delivery of CIH. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of active-duty military personnel report the use of at least one type of CIH therapy. As active-duty personnel transition to veteran status, both their physical and mental healthcare needs can potentially benefit from CIH therapies. The VA must actively support local enthusiastic CIH proponents and receive congressional support if it is to actually meet its stated goal of providing personalized, proactive, patient-driven healthcare through the promotion of comprehensive CIH services to veterans.
Entities:
Keywords:
access; barriers and facilitators; complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); complementary and integrative health (CIH); patient-centered care; veterans
Authors: Carol E Fletcher; Allison R Mitchinson; Erika L Trumble; Daniel B Hinshaw; Jeffery A Dusek Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christine Goertz; Bernadette P Marriott; Michael D Finch; Robert M Bray; Thomas V Williams; Laurel L Hourani; Louise S Hadden; Heather L Colleran; Wayne B Jonas Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Amy S B Bohnert; Mark A Ilgen; Jodie A Trafton; Robert D Kerns; Anna Eisenberg; Dara Ganoczy; Frederic C Blow Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Rael T Lange; Louis M French; Angelle M Sander; Jenna Freedman; Tracey A Brickell Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2018 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Diana J Burgess; Roni Evans; Kelli D Allen; Ann Bangerter; Gert Bronfort; Lee J Cross; John E Ferguson; Alex Haley; Emily M Hagel Campbell; Mallory R Mahaffey; Marianne S Matthias; Laura A Meis; Melissa A Polusny; J Greg Serpa; Stephanie L Taylor; Brent C Taylor Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Bruna Hoffmann de Oliveira; Anna Quialheiro de Abreu da Silva; Daniela Dero Ludtke; Fernanda Madeira; Graciela Mendonça da Silva Medeiros; Rodolfo Borges Parreira; Afonso Shiguemi Inoue Salgado; Luiz Augusto Oliveira Belmonte; Francisco José Cidral-Filho; Daniel F Martins Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Deena E Kuruvilla; Hayley Lindsey; Amy S Grinberg; Roberta E Goldman; Samantha Riley; Sean Baird; Brenda T Fenton; Jason J Sico; Teresa M Damush Journal: BMC Complement Med Ther Date: 2022-01-25
Authors: Stacie A Salsbury; Elissa Twist; Robert B Wallace; Robert D Vining; Christine M Goertz; Cynthia R Long Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-01-14