Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: Scientific Abstracts Presented at the International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health 2012

Open Access Open Badges Poster presentation

P02.08. Patient reported outcomes from complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (PROCAIM): a feasibility practice network study

D Ackerman1*, L Shinto2, M Hardy3, A Heyman4, L Nguyen5, A Senders2, D Abrams6, A Ali7, B Enebo8, P Homel9, R Horowitz10, M Reardon11 and C Torkelson12

  • * Corresponding author: D Ackerman

Author Affiliations

1 Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, Portland, USA

2 Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, USA

3 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA

4 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

5 National College of Natural Medicine, Portland, USA

6 University of California, San Francisco, Osher Center, San Francisco, USA

7 Yale University, Integrative Medicine Center at Griffin Hosptial, Derby, USA

8 University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, USA

9 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA

10 University of Arizona, Center for Integrative Medicine, Tucson, USA

11 University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, USA

12 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012, 12(Suppl 1):P64  doi:10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P64

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at:

Published:12 June 2012

© 2012 Ackerman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


To assess the feasibility of utilizing a web-based data collection system as the research infrastructure for conducting multi-site outcomes research to evaluate complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine.


The study was a longitudinal observational, cohort study with data collected at baseline and three months. Nine integrative medicine clinics housed at academic health centers that were members of the Consortium for Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine (CAHCIM) were invited to participate. Each academic health center was asked to obtain IRB approval for the study. Clinic patients enrolled in the study were given instructions for logging on to the project website to complete the following questionnaires: demographic, quality of life (SF-12), brief pain inventory, and an evaluation of the web-based system. Three months after completing baseline questionnaires patients were notified by email with instructions to complete final quality of life and pain questionnaires. Change in quality of life and pain were analyzed by paired t-test.


All nine centers obtained IRB approval and subjects gave informed consent. Eighty patients from eight centers were enrolled and 48% (38/80) completed the baseline questionnaires. Of those that completed baseline questionnaires, 58% (22/38) completed the 3-month questionnaires. Eighty-four percent (32/38) at baseline completed the evaluation rating their experience with the system and 74% (28/38) responded that the web-based system was easy to navigate. Only 16 participants completed both baseline and 3-month quality of life and pain questionnaires, limiting interpretation of this data. Significant improvements in the mental health component of SF-12 (MCS, p=0.034), pain severity (p=0.02) and pain interference (p=0.01) were observed.


The study shows the feasibility of web-based data collection from multiple sites. Limited study resources likely contributed to a significant number of enrolled participants not completing surveys. Although limited, the data showing improvements in MCS and pain warrant further investigation.