Skip to content

Collaborative Care for Older Adults With Back Pain (COCOA)

Co-Management of Older Adults With Low Back Pain by Medical Physicians and Doctors of Chiropractic

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01312233
Acronym
COCOA
Enrollment
131
Registered
2011-03-10
Start date
2011-03-31
Completion date
2013-03-31
Last updated
2021-03-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Low Back Pain

Brief summary

The purpose of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults with Back Pain (COCOA) Clinical Trial is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a collaborative care model (medical and chiropractic care) through a pragmatic, prospective pilot trial conducted with 120 older adults over the age of 65 with low back pain of at least 1 month duration.

Detailed description

As America ages, cost-effective care for chronic diseases, such as low back pain, becomes more important. Although estimates vary, 70-85% of Americans will suffer from back pain at some point in their lives. Back pain is well established as one of the most common reasons for seeking care from a medical doctor. The American public also turns to alternative medicine providers, such as doctors of chiropractic, for back pain care. However, few clinical examples and little scientific evidence exist of care coordination between these two provider groups in general, and none that specifically target older adults above the age of 65. The purpose of the Collaborative Care for Older Adults with Back Pain (COCOA) Clinical Trial is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and feasibility of a collaborative care model (medical and chiropractic care) through a pragmatic, prospective pilot trial conducted with 120 older adults over the age of 65 with low back pain of at least 1 month duration. Participants will be randomized to 3-parallel treatment arms: a) conventional medical care (MED CARE), b) unlinked conventional medical and chiropractic care (DUAL CARE), and c) a co-management model including conventional medical and chiropractic care (SHARED CARE). Participants in all three groups will receive up to 12 weeks of usual back pain treatment from medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy (MD/DO) at Genesis Family Medical Center. Participants in two treatment groups additionally will receive up to 12 weeks of usual chiropractic care for back pain from doctors of chiropractic at the Palmer Research Clinic. Outcomes including pain, disability and secondary outcomes will be measured at 1, 2, and 3 months (primary endpoint) with follow-up assessments completed by telephone at 6, 9, and 12 months.

Interventions

Participants allocated to all three treatment groups receive medical care over a 12-week period. Medical treatments are standard therapies for back pain. Medical and osteopathic physicians follow clinical practice guideline recommendations for back pain: focused history and physical exam; limited diagnostic imaging; self-management education; maintaining physical activity as tolerated and local heat/cold application; pharmacotherapy with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents. Participants not responding to treatment may receive additional therapies such as physical therapy or specialist referral.

OTHERDual Care

Participants allocated to Dual Care receive medical care as described plus chiropractic care over a 12-week period. Chiropractic care includes standard therapies for back pain. A doctor of chiropractic determines the therapeutic approach based upon a participant's clinical presentation. Treatments may include spinal or extremity joint manipulation, such as: high velocity-low amplitude or low velocity-variable amplitude maneuvers; mechanical device assisted adjustments; or passive mobilization. Recommendations for exercise, lifestyle modifications, or other therapies may be provided.

Participants allocated to Shared Care receive co-managed medical care from a medical or osteopathic doctor and chiropractic care from a doctor of chiropractic over a 12-week period. The medical and chiropractic treatments are standard therapies for back pain, as described under Medical Care and Dual Care.

Sponsors

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
CollaboratorFED
Genesis Family Medical Center
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
University of Iowa
CollaboratorOTHER
Thomas Jefferson University
CollaboratorOTHER
Palmer College of Chiropractic
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
65 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age 65 years or older * Low back pain ≥4 on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale * Low back pain diagnosis consistent with Quebec Task Force (QTF) Classifications 1-9 * Ambulatory mobility status per successful completion of the Timed Up & Go Test * Willingness to participate in this clinical trial regardless of treatment group assignment

Exclusion criteria

* No history or current episode of low back pain * Low back pain duration of less than 1 month * Low back pain diagnosis consistent with Quebec Task Force Classification of 10 or 11 * Any healthcare provider treatment for low back pain in past 2 months * Currently seeking or receiving compensation for a work-related injury or personal injury case for low back pain * Currently seeking or applying for disability payments for any health condition * Spine or neck surgery in the past 3 months * Broken bone in any location in the body in the past 6 weeks * Active carcinoma/metastatic disease or current treatment for any form of cancer * Aortic aneurysm (or suspicion of) \>5cm * Serious concomitant illness or co-morbidity * Alcohol or drug abuse or dependence * Need for laboratory testing, diagnostic imaging beyond plain film x-rays or referral to a healthcare provider not associated with the study to determine a diagnosis or for necessary treatment * Activities of daily living (ADL), mobility impairment or sensory impairment that impacts safety * Cognitive or memory impairment * Compliance concerns * Nursing home residence * No reliable transportation * Plans to move from Quad-Cities in the next 4 months * Pregnancy or plans to become pregnant in next 4 months in a female participant * Enrollment in this study by another individual who currently lives in the same household as the participant * Inability to speak (verbally comprehend), read or write in English language * Unwillingness to avoid all forms of low back pain treatment from non-study medical doctors and chiropractors during study participation * Unwillingness to enroll in clinical trial regardless of treatment group assignment * Unwillingness to sign informed consent document * Current student, employee or faculty member of the Palmer College of Chiropractic or Genesis Family Medical Center

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)Baseline and 3 monthsAdjusted mean changes in patient-rated LBP from baseline to week 12 were assessed. Average and worst LBP were rated on an 11 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) point scale (0, no LBP; 10 worst LBP possible)
Change From Baseline in Patient-Rated Disability, the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)Baseline and 3 monthsAdjusted mean changes in patient-rated disability from baseline to week 12 were assessed using the 24-item RMDQ where 0 indicated no disability and 24 indicated severe disability.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Veterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Baseline and 3 monthsPhysical function and Emotional Well-being (range 0-100). Higher scores indicate a better outcome.
Change From Baseline in Bothersomeness of Low Back Pain SymptomsBaseline to 3 monthsAdjusted mean changes in patient-reported LBP bothersomeness on a 5 point scale index (1, not at all bothered; 5, extremely bothered) from baseline to week 12 were assessed.
Patient Satisfaction With Care3 monthsPercent of participants reporting levels of satisfaction for the information received regarding the cause of low back pain \[LBP\] (A), prognosis of LBP (B) and activities that hasten recovery (C), concern of MDs and Doctor of Chiropractic (DCs) during treatments (D), the quality of the treatment recommendations(E) and the overall care for LBP (F)

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Shared Care
Co-management of medical care and chiropractic care Shared Care: Participants allocated to Shared Care receive co-managed medical care from a medical or osteopathic doctor and chiropractic care from a doctor of chiropractic over a 12-week period. The medical and chiropractic treatments are standard therapies for back pain, as described under Medical Care and Dual Care.
44
Dual Care
Unlinked co-occurrence of conventional medical care and chiropractic care Dual Care: Participants allocated to Dual Care receive medical care as described plus chiropractic care over a 12-week period. Chiropractic care includes standard therapies for back pain. A doctor of chiropractic determines the therapeutic approach based upon a participant's clinical presentation. Treatments may include spinal or extremity joint manipulation, such as: high velocity-low amplitude or low velocity-variable amplitude maneuvers; mechanical device assisted adjustments; or passive mobilization. Recommendations for exercise, lifestyle modifications, or other therapies may be provided.
44
Medical Care
Conventional medical care alone Medical Care: Participants allocated to all three treatment groups receive medical care over a 12-week period. Medical treatments are standard therapies for back pain. Medical and osteopathic physicians follow clinical practice guideline recommendations for back pain: focused history and physical exam; limited diagnostic imaging; self-management education; maintaining physical activity as tolerated and local heat/cold application; pharmacotherapy with analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents. Participants not responding to treatment may receive additional therapies such as physical therapy or specialist referral.
43
Total131

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicShared CareDual CareMedical CareTotal
Age, Continuous73.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.2
72.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6
72.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4
72.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.2
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Other
4 Participants1 Participants3 Participants8 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
White
40 Participants43 Participants40 Participants123 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
44 participants44 participants43 participants131 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
16 Participants16 Participants19 Participants51 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
28 Participants28 Participants24 Participants80 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 440 / 440 / 43
other
Total, other adverse events
34 / 4436 / 4410 / 43
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 440 / 440 / 43

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline in Patient-Rated Disability, the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)

Adjusted mean changes in patient-rated disability from baseline to week 12 were assessed using the 24-item RMDQ where 0 indicated no disability and 24 indicated severe disability.

Time frame: Baseline and 3 months

Population: 9 participants (shared care, n=2 / Med Care n=7) did not complete the 3 month appointment due to either withdrawal or loss to follow-up.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Shared CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Disability, the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)2.8 units on a scale
Dual CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Disability, the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)2.5 units on a scale
Medical CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Disability, the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)1.5 units on a scale
Primary

Change From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)

Adjusted mean changes in patient-rated LBP from baseline to week 12 were assessed. Average and worst LBP were rated on an 11 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) point scale (0, no LBP; 10 worst LBP possible)

Time frame: Baseline and 3 months

Population: 9 participants (shared care, n=2 / Med Care n=7) did not complete the 3 month appointment due to either withdrawal or loss to follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Shared CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Average LBP (adjusted mean change)1.8 units on a scale
Shared CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Worst LBP (adjusted mean change)2.1 units on a scale
Dual CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Average LBP (adjusted mean change)3.0 units on a scale
Dual CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Worst LBP (adjusted mean change)2.9 units on a scale
Medical CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Average LBP (adjusted mean change)2.3 units on a scale
Medical CareChange From Baseline in Patient-Rated Low Back Pain (LBP), an 11 Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)NRS - Worst LBP (adjusted mean change)2.3 units on a scale
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Bothersomeness of Low Back Pain Symptoms

Adjusted mean changes in patient-reported LBP bothersomeness on a 5 point scale index (1, not at all bothered; 5, extremely bothered) from baseline to week 12 were assessed.

Time frame: Baseline to 3 months

Population: 9 participants (shared care, n=2 / Med Care n=7) did not complete the 3 month appointment due to either withdrawal or loss to follow-up.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Shared CareChange From Baseline in Bothersomeness of Low Back Pain Symptoms0.8 units on a scale
Dual CareChange From Baseline in Bothersomeness of Low Back Pain Symptoms0.9 units on a scale
Medical CareChange From Baseline in Bothersomeness of Low Back Pain Symptoms0.6 units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Satisfaction With Care

Percent of participants reporting levels of satisfaction for the information received regarding the cause of low back pain \[LBP\] (A), prognosis of LBP (B) and activities that hasten recovery (C), concern of MDs and Doctor of Chiropractic (DCs) during treatments (D), the quality of the treatment recommendations(E) and the overall care for LBP (F)

Time frame: 3 months

Population: 9 participants (shared care, n=2 / Med Care n=7) did not complete the 3 month appointment due to either withdrawal or loss to follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryPoor0 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPFair1 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsPoor0 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryFair2 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPExcellent17 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryExcellent27 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryGood10 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPVery Good14 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryVery Good7 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryVery Good12 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPPoor0 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryGood6 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryExcellent18 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPPoor0 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryFair1 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryPoor1 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPGood10 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsExcellent25 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPFair5 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPFair2 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsVery Good11 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPGood10 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPGood5 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPPoor1 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPVery Good14 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPVery Good12 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsGood6 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPExcellent13 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPExcellent22 Participants
Shared CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsFair0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsGood2 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPFair2 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPGood7 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPVery Good14 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPExcellent21 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPFair1 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPGood10 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPVery Good15 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPExcellent18 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryFair1 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryGood8 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryVery Good11 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryExcellent24 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryFair0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryGood1 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryVery Good7 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryExcellent36 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsFair1 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsVery Good11 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsExcellent30 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPPoor0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPFair0 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPGood4 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPVery Good8 Participants
Dual CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPExcellent32 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryPoor5 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPGood8 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsPoor3 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPExcellent1 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPPoor7 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsFair5 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPVery Good16 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPGood6 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsGood8 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPFair7 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPGood4 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsVery Good12 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(B) Prognosis of LBPPoor6 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPFair4 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(E) Quality of treatment recommendationsExcellent8 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPExcellent2 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPExcellent4 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryPoor2 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryExcellent3 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPPoor4 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryFair2 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryVery Good14 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(A) Cause of LBPVery Good15 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryGood8 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryGood8 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPVery Good17 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryVery Good11 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(C) Activities that hasten recoveryFair6 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(F) Overall Care for LBPFair7 Participants
Medical CarePatient Satisfaction With Care(D) Concern of MDs and DCs during recoveryExcellent13 Participants
Secondary

Veterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)

Physical function and Emotional Well-being (range 0-100). Higher scores indicate a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline and 3 months

Population: 9 participants (shared care, n=2 / Med Care n=7) did not complete the 3 month appointment due to either withdrawal or loss to follow-up.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Shared CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - Baseline50.0 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 26.9
Shared CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - 3 Months58.8 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 26.2
Shared CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - Baseline78.5 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 13.1
Shared CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - 3 Months80.9 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 14.1
Dual CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - 3 Months82.4 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 12.4
Dual CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - Baseline57.8 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 23.6
Dual CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - Baseline80.4 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 14
Dual CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - 3 Months63.8 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 25.4
Medical CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - 3 Months82.2 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 12.9
Medical CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - 3 Months65.6 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 24.2
Medical CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Emotional Well-Being - Baseline77.8 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 13.3
Medical CareVeterans-RAND 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (VR-36)Physical Function - Baseline65.0 units on a scale (0-100)Standard Deviation 23.3

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 19, 2026