In-Person or Virtual Educational Preferences in Patients With Fibromyalgia: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: Patient education is a core component of treating fibromyalgia and central sensitization disorders. We sought to evaluate whether patients with fibromyalgia prefer virtual or in-person educational classes as part of their treatment program, identify underlying factors with their educational modality choice, and highlight benefits or barriers associated with in-person or online educational sessions. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey with a qualitative feedback component was utilized. METHODS: A voluntary, anonymous survey was distributed to all participants (in-person and virtual) of the fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue clinic treatment program from October 2021 through March 2022. RESULTS: In total 90 participants completed the survey. Nearly all (94%) agreed that the pathophysiologic education was relevant and valuable and (98%) agreed to feeling confident with implementing management strategies. Perceived connection between the participants varied between groups (85% of in-person vs 48% of online; p < .001), as did perceived engagement (100% of in-person vs 71% of online; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients value education and find it useful in treating fibromyalgia, regardless of the educational modality. The online group reported more limitations including less engagement, class participation, and connection with peers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As virtual education platforms become more widely available and may be easier to access than in-person options, it is important to understand patient preferences, benefits, and disadvantages of educational modalities to ensure education and patient outcomes remain equitable.

Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between US osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts.

Data were gathered through a random national mail survey of 3000 US osteopathic physicians. Nine hundred and fifty-five questionnaires were usable for analysis. Through open-ended questions, osteopathic physicians identified philosophic and practice differences that distinguished them from their allopathic counterparts, and whether they believed the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), a key identifiable feature of the osteopathic profession, was appropriate in their specialty. Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the question regarding philosophic differences answered positively, and 41 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that holistic medicine was the most distinguishing characteristic of their profession. In response to the question on practice differences, 59 percent of the respondents believed they practiced differently from allopathic physicians, and 72 percent of the follow-up responses indicated that the osteopathic approach to treatment was a primary distinguishing feature, mainly incorporating the application of OMT, a caring doctor-patient relationship, and a hands-on style. More respondents who specialized in osteopathic manipulative medicine and family practice perceived differences between them and their allopathic counterparts than did other practitioners. Almost all respondents believed OMT was an efficacious treatment, but 19 percent of all respondents felt use of OMT was inappropriate in their specialty. Thirty-one percent of the pediatricians and 38 percent of the non-primary care specialists shared this view. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents had a self-identification as osteopathic physicians, but less than half felt their patients identified them as such. When responses are considered in the context of all survey respondents (versus only those who provided open-ended responses) not a single philosophic concept or resultant practice behavior had concurrence from more than a third of the respondents as distinguishing osteopathic from allopathic medicine. Rank and file osteopathic practitioners seem to be struggling for a legitimate professional identification. The outcome of this struggle is bound to have an impact on health care delivery in the US.

Conditions and diagnoses for which osteopathic primary care physicians and specialists use osteopathic manipulative treatment.

Data presented in this study were gathered in 1998 through a national mail survey of 3000 randomly selected osteopathic physicians. Of 979 (33.4%) questionnaires returned, 955 (97.5%) were usable for analysis. The use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) was determined for primary care physicians and specialists. Osteopathic manipulative treatment specialists and family physicians provided OMT significantly more frequently than other primary care physicians and non-primary care specialists. More than 50% of respondents (513) administered OMT on less than 5% of their patients. Nevertheless, it should be noted that physicians from 40 of 46 specialties and subspecialties represented in the survey (678, 71%) identified an average of 3.3 conditions and diagnoses per physician that were managed with OMT. The conditions and diagnoses for which OMT is used have been enumerated and codified. More than 50% of conditions (1135) for which respondents treated patients with OMT related to the musculoskeletal system, but extensive overlap among other body systems and body regions attests to the continued incorporation of OMT into holistic patient care by a broad range of osteopathic physicians.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment techniques preferred by contemporary osteopathic physicians.

Data presented in this study were gathered through a national mail survey of 3000 randomly selected osteopathic physicians. A total of 955 questionnaires were usable for analysis. Osteopathic physicians' likelihood of using eleven osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) techniques (articulatory, counterstrain, cranial, facilitated positional release, fascial ligamentous release, functional, high-velocity low-amplitude thrust, lymphatic, muscle energy, myofascial/integrated neuromuscular release, and soft tissue) was determined. The relative frequency of use from most (soft tissue) to least (cranial) used was also determined. Respondents were more likely to use direct techniques than indirect or direct-indirect techniques. Demographic variables of gender, age, and specialty training were found to be related to the techniques used most. Female osteopathic physicians and older osteopathic physicians were more likely to use indirect techniques, whereas male and younger physicians preferred direct techniques. Moreover, OMT specialists used a broader range of techniques than other osteopathic physicians, and family physicians were more apt to use high-velocity low-amplitude thrust than other primary care or non-primary care osteopathic physicians. These results not only have implications for curricular planning in all phases of osteopathic undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education programs, but also for research on the quality and effectiveness of various OMT techniques.

Domestic violence: prevalence and detection in a family medicine residency clinic.

This study was designed to investigate the detection rate of domestic violence by resident physicians in a community-based, primary care training program. Baseline information on detection rates was gathered from residents in the prestudy phase and was compared with data from the 6-month investigation phase of the study, during which a self-administered pencil-and-paper questionnaire on domestic violence was provided to patients and residents. The nursing staff screened new female patients and established patients returning for annual physical examinations. Patients older than 18 years were asked to complete a four-question survey. The examining resident physicians then reviewed the questionnaire answers with patients. During the 6-month prestudy phase, only 7 of 136 patients (5.1%) were determined to be in current (2.9%) or past (2.2%) abusive relationships. Of the 52 patients who completed the investigation phase of the study, 25 (48.1%) reported a lifetime history of abuse, with 9.6% of patients reporting current abuse and 38.5% reporting past abuse. There was a statistical difference regarding history of abuse and lifetime incidence of abuse between the control and study groups. The authors found that routine screening with a few questions could significantly increase detection of domestic violence and enable victims to begin to address their problems. This study has implications for continuing medical education programs as well as residency training programs.