Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate veteran patient and provider perceptions and preferences on complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) for headache management.
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has spearheaded a Whole Health system of care focusing on CIM-based care for veteran patients. Less is known about patients\' and providers\' CIM perceptions and preferences for chronic headache management.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 veteran patients diagnosed with headache and 43 clinical providers, across 12 VHA Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE), from January 2019 to March 2020. We conducted thematic and case comparative analyses.
RESULTS: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers viewed CIM favorably for the treatment of chronic headache. Specific barriers to CIM approaches included: (1) A lack of personnel specialized in specific CIM approaches for timely access, and (2) variation in patient perceptions and responses to CIM treatment efficacy for headache management.
CONCLUSIONS: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers in this study viewed CIM favorably as a safe addition to mainstream headache treatments. Advantages to CIM include favorable adverse effect profiles and patient autonomy over the treatment. By adding more CIM providers and resources throughout the VHA, CIM modalities may be recommended more routinely in the management of veterans with headache.
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has spearheaded a Whole Health system of care focusing on CIM-based care for veteran patients. Less is known about patients\' and providers\' CIM perceptions and preferences for chronic headache management.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 veteran patients diagnosed with headache and 43 clinical providers, across 12 VHA Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE), from January 2019 to March 2020. We conducted thematic and case comparative analyses.
RESULTS: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers viewed CIM favorably for the treatment of chronic headache. Specific barriers to CIM approaches included: (1) A lack of personnel specialized in specific CIM approaches for timely access, and (2) variation in patient perceptions and responses to CIM treatment efficacy for headache management.
CONCLUSIONS: Veteran patients and VHA clinical providers in this study viewed CIM favorably as a safe addition to mainstream headache treatments. Advantages to CIM include favorable adverse effect profiles and patient autonomy over the treatment. By adding more CIM providers and resources throughout the VHA, CIM modalities may be recommended more routinely in the management of veterans with headache.
摘要：
目的：评估资深患者和提供者对头痛管理的补充和综合医学（CIM）的看法和偏好。
背景：退伍军人健康管理局（VHA）率先建立了一个针对退伍军人患者的基于CIM的护理的全健康护理系统。对患者和提供者对慢性头痛管理的CIM看法和偏好知之甚少。
方法：我们对20名诊断为头痛的老患者和43名临床提供者进行了半结构化访谈，跨越12个VHA头痛卓越中心（HCoE），从2019年1月到2020年3月。我们进行了主题和案例比较分析。
结果：资深患者和VHA临床提供者认为CIM对慢性头痛的治疗有利。CIM方法的具体障碍包括：(1)缺乏专门研究特定CIM方法的人员，（2）患者对CIM治疗头痛疗效的看法和反应的变化。
结论：本研究中的资深患者和VHA临床提供者认为CIM是主流头痛治疗的安全补充。CIM的优势包括有利的不良反应概况和患者对治疗的自主性。通过在整个VHA中添加更多的CIM提供程序和资源，在退伍军人头痛的管理中，可以更常规地推荐CIM模式。
背景：退伍军人健康管理局（VHA）率先建立了一个针对退伍军人患者的基于CIM的护理的全健康护理系统。对患者和提供者对慢性头痛管理的CIM看法和偏好知之甚少。
方法：我们对20名诊断为头痛的老患者和43名临床提供者进行了半结构化访谈，跨越12个VHA头痛卓越中心（HCoE），从2019年1月到2020年3月。我们进行了主题和案例比较分析。
结果：资深患者和VHA临床提供者认为CIM对慢性头痛的治疗有利。CIM方法的具体障碍包括：(1)缺乏专门研究特定CIM方法的人员，（2）患者对CIM治疗头痛疗效的看法和反应的变化。
结论：本研究中的资深患者和VHA临床提供者认为CIM是主流头痛治疗的安全补充。CIM的优势包括有利的不良反应概况和患者对治疗的自主性。通过在整个VHA中添加更多的CIM提供程序和资源，在退伍军人头痛的管理中，可以更常规地推荐CIM模式。
