Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Ambiguity in care delivery terminology: implications that affect pragmatic clinical trials using non-pharmacological interventions

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @danrhon

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the conceptualisation of the paper and contributed substantially to the final draft. All authors approved the final draft. DIR and AFD created the initial draft.

  • Funding Research reported in this publication was made possible by support from grant number U24 AT009769 from the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) and the Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), in addition to support from the NCCIH UG3/UH3AT009763 and UH3AT009761 cooperative agreements and the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Health Affairs endorsed by the Department of Defence, through the Pain Management Collaboratory – Pragmatic Clinical Trials Demonstration Project Award W81XWH-18-2-0008. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCCIH, OBSSR and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This manuscript is a product of the NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory. For more information about the Collaboratory, visit

  • Disclaimer The view(s) expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the US Defence Health Agency, Brooke Army Medical Centre, the Uniformed Services University, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs, NCCIH, NIH or the US Government.

  • Competing interests Work by all authors was supported by grants from either the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) or the US Department of Defense. In all cases, funding was provided to institutions and not to individuals. No other competing interests to declare.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.