Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24708726›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2014

IMPACT--Integrative Medicine PrimAry Care Trial: protocol for a comparative effectiveness study of the clinical and cost outcomes of an integrative primary care clinic model.

Patricia M Herman, Sally E Dodds, Melanie D Logue, Ivo Abraham, Rick A Rehfeld, Amy J Grizzle, Terry F Urbine, Randy Horwitz, Robert L Crocker, Victoria H Maizes

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01785485 (IMPACT), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01785485 unknown statusnot on this map

IMPACT: Integrative Medicine PrimAry Care Trial: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of an Integrative Primary Care Clinic

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ArizonaRan2013 to 2015Enrolled500ConditionsAdult Primary Care PatientsArmsIntegrative medicine primary care model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Breast Cancer Integrative Oncology Care and Its Costs.Integrative cancer therapies · 2017
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Patricia M Herman
Sally E DoddsArizona Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, USA. sdodds1@email.arizona.edu.
Melanie D Logue
Ivo Abraham
Rick A Rehfeld
Amy J Grizzle
Terry F Urbine
Randy Horwitz
Robert L Crocker
Victoria H Maizes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrative medicine (IM) is a patient-centered, healing-oriented clinical paradigm that explicitly includes all appropriate therapeutic approaches whether they originate in conventional or complementary medicine (CM). While there is some evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IM practice models, the existing evidence base for IM depends largely on studies of individual CM therapies. This may in part be due to the methodological challenges inherent in evaluating a complex intervention (i.e., many interacting components applied flexibly and with tailoring) such as IM. METHODS/

designThis study will use a combination of observational quantitative and qualitative methods to rigorously measure the health and healthcare utilization outcomes of the University of Arizona Integrative Health Center (UAIHC), an IM adult primary care clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. There are four groups of study participants. The primary group consists of clinic patients for whom clinical and cost outcomes will be tracked indicating the impact of the UAIHC clinic (n = 500). In addition to comparing outcomes pre/post clinic enrollment, where possible, these outcomes will be compared to those of two matched control groups, and for some self-report measures, to regional and national data. The second and third study groups consist of clinic patients (n = 180) and clinic personnel (n = 15-20) from whom fidelity data (i.e., data indicating the extent to which the IM practice model was implemented as planned) will be collected. These data will be analyzed to determine the exact nature of the intervention as implemented and to provide covariates to the outcomes analyses as the clinic evolves. The fourth group is made up of patients (n = 8) whose path through the clinic will be studied in detail using qualitative (periodic semi-structured interviews) methods. These data will be used to develop hypotheses regarding how the clinic works. DISCUSSION: The US health care system needs new models of care that are more patient-centered and empower patients to make positive lifestyle changes. These models have the potential to reduce the burden of chronic disease, lower the cost of healthcare, and offer a sustainable financial paradigm for our nation. This protocol has been designed to test whether the UAIHC can achieve this potential.

trial registrationClinical Trials.gov NCT01785485.

Indexed as

Integrative MedicinePrimary Health CareAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObservational Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID24708726
PMCPMC3984431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.