Bloomington, MN, United States

Northwestern Health Sciences University
Bloomington, MN, United States

Northwestern Health science University is a natural health care university located in Bloomington, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis. The university has educational programs in chiropractic, Oriental medicine, acupuncture, therapeutic massage, and human biology. The university was founded in 1941 by John B. Wolfe, DC.Previously Northwestern College of Chiropractic, Northwestern Health science University has been an international leader in natural health care education, patient care, and research for over 70 years. Since 1991, Northwestern’s Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies has become one of the largest natural health care research institutions in the world, garnering more than $7 million in federally funded studies. Wikipedia.

Time filter
Source Type

News Article | May 9, 2017

Standard Process Inc. awarded Mitchell Rasmussen, a chiropractic student at Northwestern Health Sciences University in Bloomington, Minnesota, with a $2,500 scholarship. He accepted his award February 2 at the university’s alumni luncheon. Every year Standard Process awards more than $90,000 in scholarships to students pursuing holistic health care. “I am humbled daily by the idea that there are people who haven’t yet been born that will need my services as a doctor of chiropractic and functional medicine practitioner,” Rasmussen said. “This fuels me every day as I continue my studies in nutritional and functional medicine.” Rasmussen is in his 10th trimester of a challenging program with a GPA of 3.3. When the scholarship was awarded, he was anticipating a spring 2017 graduation with plans to use the scholarship to fund a 350-hour post-doctoral diplomate program. Standard Process proudly supports future health care professionals and is devoted to promoting healthy lifestyles. In addition to scholarships, the company offers learning opportunities by sponsoring student activities, giving educational tours, and investing in universities and colleges through grants and capital gifts. For students to qualify for a Standard Process scholarship, they must meet the following criteria: If you would like to learn more about Standard Process scholarship opportunities, contact Lisa Hackett, professional development coordinator, at 800-848-5061 or lhackett(at)standardprocess(dot)com. About Standard Process Inc. Standard Process is the visionary leader in whole food nutrient solutions. Based in Palmyra, Wisconsin, Standard Process offers more than 300 high-quality supplements made with whole food and other ingredients through three product lines: The products are available exclusively through health care professionals, including chiropractors, acupuncturists, nurses, naturopaths, medical doctors and veterinarians. Standard Process is guided by the whole food philosophy of its founder, Dr. Royal Lee. Dr. Lee’s goal was to provide nutrients as they are found in nature, where he believed their natural potency and efficacy would be realized. Today Standard Process proudly carries on Dr. Lee’s legacy and regularly grows more than 60 percent of the raw plant ingredients found in its products on its certified organic farm in Palmyra, Wisconsin. Using state-of-the-art manufacturing processes to retain vital nutrients within each ingredient, Standard Process manufactures its supplements in its certified organic manufacturing facility. Standard Process employs high quality control standards and follows the Food and Drug Administration’s good manufacturing practices. In the 1940s, Dr. Royal Lee marketed the first household flour mill under the Lee Engineering brand. The Lee Household Flour MillTM has been redesigned and is now offered along with other nutrition-focused products under the Standard Process subsidiary, Royal Lee Organics™. Standard Process employs more than 380 people and has been in business since 1929. The company is recognized as a distinguished leader and innovator in workplace wellness and an exemplary environmental steward. It is a recipient of the Platinum Well Workplace Award from the Wellness Councils of America and a Tier 1 participant in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Green Tier program, which recognizes companies with strong environmental compliance records. For additional information about Standard Process, visit

Estrin Dashe A.A.,Northwestern Health Sciences University
International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice | Year: 2012

Background: Several studies have reported on the health benefits of applying an integrated complementary health care model. Purpose: This paper presents the results of pilot research focusing on the observations massage therapy students made about complementary health care education and integration during massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture treatments at two university clinics. Setting: Observations took place at Northwestern Health Sciences University's associated clinics that offered massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Research Design: Students directly observed how clinicians and interns educated their patients and integrated other forms of complementary health care into their practice. Participants: chiropractors, massage therapists, and acupuncturists, and their patients. All participants were English-speaking and 18-65 years old. Main Outcome Measures: Observations recorded by students in journals about education and integration during massage therapy, chiropractic, and acupuncture treatments were coded and counted. Results: Qualitative observations showed that clinicians and interns educated patients to some degree, but the clinicians were less apt to integrate other modalities than the interns. Conclusions: Observations support that professional integrity may limit clinicians in their ability to integrate multiple modalities of health care while treating patients. Since it is well established that integration of multiple health care modalities is beneficial to patient health, it is recommended that clinics assist their clinical staff in applying an integrative approach to their practice.

Bronfort G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Evans R.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Anderson A.V.,Medical Pain Management | Svendsen K.H.,900 Forest Avenue | And 2 more authors.
Annals of Internal Medicine | Year: 2012

Background: Mechanical neck pain is a common condition that affects an estimated 70% of persons at some point in their lives. Little research exists to guide the choice of therapy for acute and subacute neck pain. Objective: To determine the relative efficacy of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), medication, and home exercise with advice (HEA) for acute and subacute neck pain in both the short and long term. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. ( registration number: NCT00029770) Setting: 1 university research center and 1 pain management clinic in Minnesota. Participants: 272 persons aged 18 to 65 years who had nonspecific neck pain for 2 to 12 weeks. Intervention: 12 weeks of SMT, medication, or HEA. Measurements: The primary outcome was participant-rated pain, measured at 2, 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. Secondary measures were self-reported disability, global improvement, medication use, satisfaction, general health status (Short Form-36 Health Survey physical and mental health scales), and adverse events. Blinded evaluation of neck motion was performed at 4 and 12 weeks. Results: For pain, SMT had a statistically significant advantage over medication after 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks (P ≤ 0.010), and HEA was superior to medication at 26 weeks (P = 0.02). No important differences in pain were found between SMT and HEA at any time point. Results for most of the secondary outcomes were similar to those of the primary outcome. Limitations: Participants and providers could not be blinded. No specific criteria for defining clinically important group differences were prespecified or available from the literature. Conclusion: For participants with acute and subacute neck pain, SMT was more effective than medication in both the short and long term. However, a few instructional sessions of HEA resulted in similar outcomes at most time points. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health. © 2012 American College of Physicians.

Bronfort G.,University of Minnesota | Hondras M.A.,Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research | Schulz C.A.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Evans R.L.,University of Minnesota | And 2 more authors.
Annals of Internal Medicine | Year: 2014

Objective: To determine whether spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) plus home exercise and advice (HEA) compared with HEA alone reduces leg pain in the short and long term in adults with BRLP.Design: Controlled pragmatic trial with allocation by minimization conducted from 2007 to 2011. ( NCT00494065).Setting: 2 research centers (Minnesota and Iowa).Patients: Persons aged 21 years or older with BRLP for least 4 weeks.Intervention: 12 weeks of SMT plus HEA or HEA alone.Results: Of the 192 enrolled patients, 191 (99%) provided follow-up data at 12 weeks and 179 (93%) at 52 weeks. For leg pain, SMT plus HEA had a clinically important advantage over HEA (difference, 10 percentage points [95% CI, 2 to 19]; P = 0.008) at 12 weeks but not at 52 weeks (difference, 7 percentage points [CI, -2 to 15]; P = 0.146). Nearly all secondary outcomes improved more with SMT plus HEA at 12 weeks, but only global improvement, satisfaction, and medication use had sustained improvements at 52 weeks. No serious treatment-related adverse events or deaths occurred.Measurements: The primary outcome was patient-rated BRLP at 12 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfaction, medication use, and general health status at 12 and 52 weeks. Blinded objective tests were done at 12 weeks.Limitation: Patients and providers could not be blinded.Conclusion: For patients with BRLP, SMT plus HEA was more effective than HEA alone after 12 weeks, but the benefit was sustained only for some secondary outcomes at 52 weeks.Background: Back-related leg pain (BRLP) is often disabling and costly, and there is a paucity of research to guide its management. © 2014 American College of Physicians.

Davis A.E.,Northwestern Health Sciences University
Transplantation | Year: 2014

BACKGROUND: The national organ allocation system for deceased-donor kidney transplant will endure increased burden as the waitlist expands and organ shortage persists. The Department of Health and Human Services issued the “Final Rule” in 1998 that states “Organs and tissues ought to be distributed on the basis of objective priority criteria and not on the basis of accidents of geography.” However, it has not been addressed whether the rule was effective in encouraging regions to share the additional burden equitably.OBJECTIVE: To assess the significance of changes of geographic disparities for four metrics since the rule’s adoption: waiting times, transplant rates, pretransplant mortality, and organ quality.METHODS: Using Organ Procurement and Transplant Network data from 1988 through 2009, annual ranges of the metrics were calculated for all donor service areas and United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Time series analyses were used to compare the metrics before and after the enactment of the Final Rule.RESULTS: A total of 412,127 kidney transplant candidates and 178,163 deceased-donor recipients were analyzed. Demographics varied significantly by region. The ranges of the four metrics have worsened by approximately 30% or more after the Final Rule at both the regional and donor service area levels.CONCLUSION: Increasing geographic disparity in allocation procedures may yield diverging outcomes and experiences in different locations for otherwise similar candidates. Consensus for measuring allocation discrepancies and policy interventions are required to mitigate the inequities. © 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Evans R.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Bronfort G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Maiers M.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Schulz C.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Hartvigsen J.,University of Southern Denmark
European Spine Journal | Year: 2014

Purpose: Global Perceived Effect (GPE) is a commonly used outcome measure for musculoskeletal conditions like neck pain; however, little is known regarding the factors patients take into account when determining their GPE. The overall objective of this work was to describe the thematic variables, which comprise the GPE from the patient's perspective. Methods: This was a mixed-methods study in which qualitative data were collected within a randomized clinical trial assessing exercise and manual therapy for chronic neck pain. A consecutive sample of 106 patients who completed the trial intervention took part in semi-structured interviews querying the meaning of GPE. Quantitative measures were collected through self-report questionnaires. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes, which were then quantified to assess potential relationships. Results: A model of GPE for chronic neck pain emerged comprised of five main themes: neck symptoms (cited by 85 %), biomechanical performance (38 %), activities of daily living (31 %), self-efficacy (10 %), and need for other treatment (6 %). Influencing factors included those contributing to GPE: treatment process (64 %), biomechanical performance (51 %), self-efficacy (16 %), and the nature of the condition (8 %). Factors, which detracted from GPE or prevented recovery included perceived nature of condition (58 %), required daily activities (10 %), lack of diagnosis (5 %), and history of failed treatment (5 %). Conclusions: GPE appears to capture chronic neck pain patient perceptions of change in different domains important to their individual pain experiences that may not be captured by other outcome instruments. Thus, GPE is a suitable patient-oriented outcome that can complement other measures in research and clinical practice. Importantly, many chronic neck pain patients believe it impossible to reach complete recovery because of a perceived intractable aspect of their neck condition; this has important implications regarding long-term disability and health-seeking behaviors. © 2014 Springer-Verlag.

Maiers M.J.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Westrom K.K.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Legendre C.G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Bronfort G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University
BMC Health Services Research | Year: 2010

Background. For the treatment of chronic back pain, it has been theorized that integrative care plans can lead to better outcomes than those achieved by monodisciplinary care alone, especially when using a collaborative, interdisciplinary, and non-hierarchical team approach. This paper describes the use of a care pathway designed to guide treatment by an integrative group of providers within a randomized controlled trial. Methods. A clinical care pathway was used by a multidisciplinary group of providers, which included acupuncturists, chiropractors, cognitive behavioral therapists, exercise therapists, massage therapists and primary care physicians. Treatment recommendations were based on an evidence-informed practice model, and reached by group consensus. Research study participants were empowered to select one of the treatment recommendations proposed by the integrative group. Common principles and benchmarks were established to guide treatment management throughout the study. Results. Thirteen providers representing 5 healthcare professions collaborated to provide integrative care to study participants. On average, 3 to 4 treatment plans, each consisting of 2 to 3 modalities, were recommended to study participants. Exercise, massage, and acupuncture were both most commonly recommended by the team and selected by study participants. Changes to care commonly incorporated cognitive behavioral therapy into treatment plans. Conclusion. This clinical care pathway was a useful tool for the consistent application of evidence-based care for low back pain in the context of an integrative setting. Trial registration. NCT00567333. © 2010 Maiers et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Westrom K.K.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Maiers M.J.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Evans R.L.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Bronfort G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University
Trials | Year: 2010

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.Methods and Design: This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.Discussion: This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.Trial registration: NCT00567333. © 2010 Westrom et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Leininger B.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Bronfort G.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Evans R.,Northwestern Health Sciences University | Reiter T.,Inpatient Rehabilitation Center
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America | Year: 2011

In this systematic review, we present a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of the literature as it relates to the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in the management of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar-related extremity pain. There is moderate quality evidence that spinal manipulation is effective for the treatment of acute lumbar radiculopathy. The quality of evidence for chronic lumbar spine-related extremity symptoms and cervical spine-related extremity symptoms of any duration is low or very low. At present, no evidence exists for the treatment of thoracic radiculopathy. Future high-quality studies should address these conditions. © 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Northwestern Health Sciences University | Date: 2012-10-16

Printed instructional and teaching materials in the fields of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine, massage therapy and natural health care; pamphlets and brochures in the fields of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine, massage therapy and natural health care. educational services, namely, developing and conducting courses at the university level in the fields of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine, massage therapy, natural health care, and undergraduate studies; conducting educational research in the fields of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine, massage therapy, and natural health care; educational services, namely, providing seminars, conferences, workshops, and lectures and distributing course materials in connection therewith at the undergraduate, post-graduate, adult education and professional levels in the fields of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine, massage therapy, and natural health care; health coaching in the fields of nutrition and exercise as they relate to musculoskeletal therapy and maintenance. Medical and scientific research, namely, conducting clinical research. health care services in the nature of chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine in the nature of alternative medicine, massage therapy, in-person energy healing touch, naturopathy, nursing, medical counseling; providing information in the field of health and wellness.

Loading Northwestern Health Sciences University collaborators
Loading Northwestern Health Sciences University collaborators