Standard Patient History Can Be Augmented Using Ethnographic Foodlife Questions.

The relationship between what and how individuals eat and their overall and long-term health is non-controversial. However, for decades, food and nutrition discussions have often been highly medicalized. Given the significant impact of poor nutrition on health, broader discussions about food should be integrated into routine patient history taking. We advocate for an expansion of the current, standard approach to patient history taking in order to include questions regarding patients' 'foodlife' (total relationship to food) as a screening and baseline assessment tool for referrals. We propose that healthcare providers: (1) routinely engage with patients about their relationship to food, and (2) recognize that such dialogues extend beyond nutrition and lifestyle questions. Mirroring other recent revisions to medical history taking-such as exploring biopsychosocial risks-questions about food relationships and motivators of eating may be essential for optimal patient assessment and referrals. We draw on the novel tools of 'foodlife' ethnography (developed by co-author ethnographer J.J.L., and further refined in collaboration with the co-authors who contributed their clinical experiences as a former primary care physician (D.M.E.), registered dietitian (J.W.M.), and diabetologist (H.Z.)) to model a set of baseline questions for inclusion in routine clinical settings. Importantly, this broader cultural approach seeks to augment and enhance current food intake discussions used by registered dietitian nutritionists, endocrinologists, internists, and medical primary care providers for better baseline assessments and referrals. By bringing the significance of food into the domain of routine medical interviewing practices by a range of health professionals, we theorize that this approach can set a strong foundation of trust between patients and healthcare professionals, underscoring food's vital role in patient-centered care.

Clinical Assessment of Mechanical Allodynia in Youth With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Development and Preliminary Validation of the Pediatric Tactile Sensitivity Test of Allodynia (Pedi-Sense).

Youth with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) commonly experience mechanical allodynia and disability. Assessment of mechanical allodynia is typically binary (present or absent), making it difficult to assess the quality and degree of mechanical allodynia before and after treatment. This study developed and validated the Pediatric Tactile Sensitivity Test of Allodynia (Pedi-Sense) to provide an easy way for rehabilitation clinicians to evaluate mechanical allodynia before and after intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment. The 6 Pedi-Sense items demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (CR) at admission (CR = .956) and discharge (CR = .973), reasonably fit the hypothesized linear model of stimulus intensity (P < .0001), and significantly loaded onto a single latent factor, mechanical allodynia (P < .0001), at admission and discharge. Pedi-Sense scores significantly correlated with disability (rs = .40; P = .004) and pain catastrophizing (rs = .33; P = .017) at admission. The Pedi-Sense appeared responsive to intervention as participants' total scores improved by 1.44 points (95% CI: .72, 2.15) after IIPT interventions that included daily tactile desensitization. However, test-retest and interrater reliability and the specific contribution of desensitization treatment to the overall success of multi-modal pain rehabilitation still needs to be evaluated. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the development and preliminary validation of a novel clinical assessment of static and dynamic mechanical allodynia. The Pediatric Tactile Sensitivity Test of Allodynia (Pedi-Sense) allows rehabilitation clinicians to easily evaluate mechanical allodynia at the bedside with minimal training and simple equipment to guide desensitization treatment in clinical settings.

Pediatric pain rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring the effectiveness of a hybrid intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment model.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) examine improvements in rehabilitation outcomes after participation in a pediatric hybrid intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment model (50% in-person and 50% video-based telehealth) and (2) compare magnitude of hybrid model improvements to patients treated in a traditional, 100% in-person model prior to the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rehabilitation outcomes for 33 youth with chronic pain from the model were compared to 33 youth with chronic pain who completed a traditional, in-person model. Improvements between admission and discharge in both models were examined using paired student t-tests. Independent samples t-tests compared change scores for the hybrid and traditional models. RESULTS: Participants in both models experienced significant improvements on all rehabilitation outcomes, including cardiovascular endurance, pain interference, functional disability, and occupational performance (p < 0.001), except for pain intensity (p = 0.15). Change scores for rehabilitation outcomes did not significantly differ between models. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitatively, hybrid model rehabilitation outcomes appeared clinically equivalent to the traditional, in-person model. Qualitative and psychosocial outcome comparisons of each model are warranted to better understand challenges and barriers associated with hybrid pain treatment models. The feasibility and impact of tools to enhance telehealth, such as actigraphy or virtual reality, should also be explored.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis study supports the efficacy of video-based telehealth interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain syndromes.Disability outcomes for a hybrid (50% in-person, 50% video-based telehealth) intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment program appear to be equivalent to patients treated within a fully in-person program.