Sheeler, Robert D.

Background Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Multidisciplinary approaches to chronic pain can support resilience in recovery of functioning. The ancient arts of t’ai chi and qigong have been touted for centuries as multimodal approaches to health and healing. An RCT of an on-line t’ai chi and qigong program for individuals with chronic low back pain found clinically significant improvements in pain, physical function, and quality of life. The program consisted of the integrated practice of t’ai chi movement and the stillness of qigong practice. Meditations in the program focused on developing positive mental attitudes to support resilience in managing the emotional challenges of pain and disease. Objective The purpose of the current qualitative study aimed to better understand participants’ experiences during the online Heal and Strengthen the Spine with T’ai Chi and Qigong (HSSTQ) program. Methods Written feedback was received from 96 program participants, and semi-structured interviews were completed with 20 participants. Interviews were transcribed and coded based upon the written feedback and interview questions. A thematic narrative was developed from the coded segments of texts and reviewed by participants in a member check. Results Three interlocking themes characterized the experiences of participants in the program: (1) participants learned skills to relieve back pain including moderation in movement; (2) the holistic nature of the program enabled a range of benefits for participants beyond pain reduction; and (3) personal healing experience, the enthusiasm of the instructor, the program itself, and available staff resources motivated individuals to participate. Conclusion The conclusion from this study and the initial RCT is that a virtually delivered integrated tai chi, qigong, and meditation program may be a viable treatment option for adults with low back pain.

Background Chronic daily headache (CDH) affects 2% to 4% of the North American and European population. Various pathways lead to this condition, although chronification of migraine and the occurrence of central sensitization in tension headache are the 2 most common. Medication overuse headaches complicate a substantial portion of other primary headaches that have become chronic and often make their treatment more complex and less successful. Methods/Results A 10‐step process to help primary care providers evaluate and treat CDH patients begins with excluding secondary headache disorders, then moves on to classification of the primary underlying headache disorder. Next, the exacerbating factors, as well as relevant comorbid conditions, are identified. The patient's current acute therapy is examined, and attempts are made to identify and resolve medication overuse if present. Past preventive therapies are reviewed, allowing for thoughtful design of a headache action plan with preventive, acute, and lifestyle components. Patients are asked to keep a headache diary, used to initiate a cycle of continuous improvement in a patient's response to acute and preventive therapeutic approaches. Conclusions A systematic approach and partnership with patients often make it possible to convert CDH to episodic headache that is responsive to both acute and preventive therapies.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.