Professional development in integrative health through an interprofessional online course in clinical settings

Effectiveness of electronic learning for continuing interprofessional education on behavior change of healthcare professionals: A scoping review

Electronic learning (e-learning) for continuing professional education (CPE) in healthcare has been shown to improve learners' satisfaction, attitudes, and performance. E-learning outcomes for continuing interprofessional education (CIPE) are less known, and the features of electronic CIPE programs that promote behavior change are unclear. In this scoping review, we sought to identify the program features and areas of behavior change in healthcare professionals using e-learning for CIPE. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library databases, and Google/Google Scholar were searched for all English articles published in the last 10 years. From the 32 studies included in our review, eight types of e-learning methods were identified. More than 35,542 healthcare professionals of different professions had participated in the programs. Thirty studies demonstrated positive behavior changes, with four areas of behavior changes identified. The most common area of change was in patient care practices. Five common program features facilitating behavior change were also identified. Most successful programs provided interactive and authentic learning experiences, which promoted direct clinical application. Future researche should include monitoring of sustained behavior changes at work, linked to patient outcomes.

The Case for Whole-Person Integrative Care

Rationale: There is a need for medicine to deliver more whole-person care. This is a narrative review of several models of whole-person care and studies that illustrate the business case for whole-person models in primary care. Objectives: To provide an overview of what whole-person care models exist and explore evidence to support these models. Study Selection: Representative whole-person care models widely used in the United States are summarized and evaluated. Selected studies focused on outpatient primary care with examples from programs that integrate the delivery of conventional medical care, complementary and alternative medicine, and self-care within the context of social and cultural environments. Methods: Pubmed search conducted December 2020-February 2021. Two iterative searches using terms for "Whole Health Veterans Administration," "integrative medicine," "integrative health," "complementary and alternative medicine," and, as they related to the outcomes, of "health outcomes," "cost-effectiveness," "cost reduction," "patient satisfaction," and "physician satisfaction." Additional studies were identified from an initial search and the authors' experience of over 50 years. We looked for studies of whole-person care used in general primary care, those not using a single modality and only from United States practices. Results: A total of 125 (out of 1746) studies were found and met our inclusion criteria. We found that whole-person models of primary care exist, are quite heterogeneous in their approaches, and routinely report substantial benefits for improving the patient experience, clinical outcomes and in reducing costs. Conclusions: Evidence for the benefit of whole-person care models exist but definitions are quite heterogenous and unfocused. There is a need for more standardization of whole-person models and more research using whole systems approaches rather than reductionistic attempts using isolated components.

Initial Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Responses from Brief Interviews of Primary Care Providers

Background: In April 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a clinical practice guideline for low back pain (LBP) recommending nonpharmacologic treatments as first-line therapy for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. Objective: To assess primary care provider (PCP)-reported initial treatment recommendations for LBP following guideline release. Design: Cross-sectional structured interviews. Participants: Convenience sample of 72 PCPs from 3 community-based outpatient clinics in high- or low-income neighborhoods. Approach: PCPs were interviewed about their familiarity with the ACP guideline, and how they initially manage patients with acute/subacute and chronic LBP. Treatment responses were coded as patient education, nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic, or medical specialty referral. PCPs were also asked about their comfort referring patients to nonpharmacologic treatment providers, and about barriers to referring. Responses were assessed using content analysis. Differences in responses were assessed using descriptive statistics. Key results: Interviews were completed between December 2017 and March 2018. Of 72 participating PCPs (50% male; mean years of practice = 13.8), over three-fourths indicated being familiar with the ACP guideline (76%-87% at 3 clinics). For acute LBP, PCPs typically provided advice to stay active (81%) and pharmacologic management (97%; primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). For chronic LBP, PCPs were more likely to recommend nonpharmacologic treatments than for acute LBP (85% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). The most common nonpharmacologic treatments recommended for chronic LBP were physical therapy (78%), chiropractic care (21%), massage therapy (18%), and acupuncture (17%) (each compared with 0% for acute LBP, all p < 0.001). The cost of nonpharmacologic treatments was perceived as a barrier. However, PCPs working in low-income neighborhood clinics were as likely to recommend nonpharmacologic approaches as those from a high-income neighborhood clinic. Conclusions: While most PCPs indicated they were familiar with the ACP guideline for LBP, nonpharmacologic treatments were not recommended for patients with acute symptoms. Further dissemination and implementation of the ACP guideline are needed.