Identifying the barriers to conducting outcomes research in integrative health care clinic settings - a qualitative study

Abstract

BackgroundIntegrative health care (IHC) is an interdisciplinary blending of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with the purpose of enhancing patients' health. In 2006, we designed a study to assess outcomes that are relevant to people using such care. However, we faced major challenges in conducting this study and hypothesized that this might be due to the lack of a research climate in these clinics. To investigate these challenges, we initiated a further study in 2008, to explore the reasons why IHC clinics are not conducting outcomes research and to identify strategies for conducting successful in-house outcomes research programs. The results of the latter study are reported here.MethodsA total of 25 qualitative interviews were conducted with key participants from 19 IHC clinics across Canada. Basic content analysis was used to identify key themes from the transcribed interviews.ResultsBarriers identified by participants fell into four categories: organizational culture, organizational resources, organizational environment and logistical challenges. Cultural challenges relate to the philosophy of IHC, organizational leadership and practitioner attitudes and beliefs. Participants also identified significant issues relating to their organization's lack of resources such as funding, compensation, infrastructure and partnerships/linkages. Environmental challenges such as the nature of a clinic's patient population and logistical issues such as the actual implementation of a research program and the applicability of research data also posed challenges to the conduct of research. Embedded research leadership, integration of personal and professional values about research, alignment of research activities and clinical workflow processes are some of the factors identified by participants that support IHC clinics' ability to conduct outcomes research.ConclusionsAssessing and enhancing the broader evaluation culture of IHC clinics prior to implementing outcomes research may be a critical step towards ensuring productive and cost-effective research programs. However, as IHC clinics are often complex systems, a whole systems approach to research should be used taking into account the multidimensional and complex nature of such treatment systems so that the results are useful and reflect real life.

The Intersecting Paradigms of Naturopathic Medicine and Public Health: Opportunities for Naturopathic Medicine

“…[23][24][25][26] The traditional ''evidence-based'' movement has been dominated by RCTs that use a reductionist perspective that fails to recognize the complexities of real-world clinical settings by constraining real-world variables, such as largely excluding patients with co-morbid conditions. 27 However, RCTs are not a homogeneous entity.…”

“…To test this, core clinical outcomes can measure health behaviors, self-efficacy, quality-of-life, well-being, and satisfaction with care as well as specific clinical outcome measures or chronic disease risk factors (such as lipoproteins, glycemic control, body-mass index, etc.). [33][34][35] The Canadian Interdisciplinary Network for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has consolidated many of these outcomes measures into a publicly accessible database. 36 Some examples of these outcome measurement tools are listed in Table 1.…”

Manipulative Therapy for Shoulder Pain and Disorders: Expansion of a Systematic Review

“…60,62 The WSR assessment system or tool has not yet been demonstrated to be valid and reliable, although significant work is developing in this direction and may allow a minimal ranking possibly beyond simple subjective opinion. [60][61][62][63][64] Whole systems research's ratings are as follows: 8 to 11 points are rated as HQ, 4 to 7 points are rated as MQ, and finally 0 to 3 points are rated as LQ (Table 1).…”

Cystic fibrosis research in allied health and nursing professions

“…AHPs and nurses are active participants in and leaders of many research activities (e.g., preparing grant applications, leading/coordinating research, writing abstracts, presenting results) [2,3]. However, AHPs and nurses encounter a number of barriers in engaging fully in the research process.…”

“…However, recent CF guidelines have highlighted the need to improve the quality of AHP and nursing research and thus, a consensus conference was convened to identify both the priority areas for future AHP and nursing research and to identify research skills which can be improved. There are a number of barriers for AHPs and nurses to overcome to increase the quality of their research: limited time because of high clinical workloads; a lack of formal recognition of research responsibilities in AHP/nursing job plans; a lack of research leadership and mentorship; difficulty obtaining funding; and a general lack of knowledge about research design and statistical techniques that are appropriate for answering AHP and nursing questions [2][3][4].…”