Examining the Relationship Between Individual Patient Factors and Substantial Clinical Benefit From Telerehabilitation Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has facilitated the emergence of telerehabilitation, but it is unclear which patients are most likely to respond to physical therapy provided this way. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between individual patient factors and substantial clinical benefit from telerehabilitation among a cohort of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected during a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Patients with chronic LBP (N = 98) were provided with a standardized physical therapy protocol adapted for telerehabilitation. We examined the relationship between patient factors and substantial clinical benefit with telerehabilitation, defined as a ≥50% improvement in disability at 10 weeks, measured using the Oswestry Disability Index. RESULTS: Sixteen (16.3%) patients reported a substantial clinical benefit from telerehabilitation. Patients reporting substantial clinical benefit from telerehabilitation had lower initial pain intensity, lower psychosocial risk per the STarT Back Screening Tool, higher levels of pain self-efficacy, and reported higher therapeutic alliance with their physical therapist compared to other patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with lower psychosocial risk and higher pain-self efficacy experienced substantial clinical benefit from telerehabilitation for chronic LBP more often than other patients in our cohort. Therapeutic alliance was higher among patients who experienced a substantial clinical benefit compared to those who did not. IMPACT: This study indicates that psychosocial factors play an important role in the outcomes of patients receiving telerehabilitation for chronic LBP. Baseline psychosocial screening may serve as a method for identifying patients likely to benefit from this approach.

Identifying Perceptions, Experiences, and Recommendations of Telehealth Physical Therapy for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Mixed Methods Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe concerns, advantages, and disadvantages encountered in an evidence-based physical therapy (PT) program for persons with chronic low back pain (CLBP) delivered by telehealth. DESIGN: Mixed methods survey and semistructured interview of persons with CLBP. SETTING: Prospective observational cohort study of persons with CLBP from 3 health care systems receiving 8 sessions of evidence-based telehealth PT. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were selected after completing week 10 (from baseline) assessment from an ongoing cohort study. We enrolled 31 of 126 participants (mean age, 42.4 years; 71.0% female) from the cohort study (N=31). INTERVENTIONS: Participants had completed 8 sessions of evidence-based telehealth PT and participated in semistructured interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline and week 10 and 26 assessments assessed psychosocial risk (StarTBack Screening Tool), working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form), pain (Oswestry Disability Index), and health-related quality of life (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 profile, version 2). Semistructured interviews were conducted by telephone and consisted of open-ended questions assessing perception, satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending telehealth PT. Participants identified advantages and disadvantages to telehealth PT. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an iterative qualitative process. Statistical comparisons by experience were made using analysis of variance (continuous) and Fisher exact test (categorical). RESULTS: Compared with the negative experience group (n=5), participants in positive (n=16) and neutral (n=10) experience groups endorsed higher bond working alliance with their therapist. Participants with a positive experience were more likely to view telehealth PT as cost-saving (n=10, 62.5%) compared with those with a neutral (n=1, 10.0%) or negative (n=1, 20.0%) experience and less likely to view telehealth PT as lower quality (n=0, 0.0%; n=1, 10.0%; n=2, 40.0%, respectively). Prior to starting telehealth, based on semistructured interviews, 18 participants (58.1%) had concerns and these persisted after starting in half of this group. Concerns regarded telehealth being different from or inferior to in-person PT, lack of physical correction, and worries of not using technology appropriately. Convenience, time savings, and personalization were seen as advantages. Difficulty making a personal connection with the therapist, lack of physical correction, and problems with technology were seen as disadvantages. Many participants endorsed a hybrid approach that included in-person and telehealth PT. Providing necessary equipment and technology assistance was seen as ways to improve telehealth PT experience. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth is an acceptable modality to deliver PT for patients with CLBP with most having a positive experience and reporting advantages. Improvements could include offering a hybrid approach (in-person and telehealth combined) and providing necessary equipment and technical support. More research is needed to optimize the most effective strategies for providing telehealth PT for patients with CLBP.

Outcomes of Telehealth Physical Therapy Provided Using Real-Time, Videoconferencing for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Longitudinal Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility of an evidence-based physical therapy (PT) program for persons with chronic low back pain (LBP) originally designed for in-person delivery, adapted for telehealth using videoconferencing. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal cohort. SETTING: Three health care systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults, aged 18-64 years (N=126), with chronic LBP recruited from August through December 2020. INTERVENTION: Up to 8 weekly sessions of telehealth PT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up assessments were 10 and 26 weeks after baseline. Participant outcomes collected were the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 health domains, and pain self-efficacy. Implementation outcomes included acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and fidelity assessed using participant surveys and compliance with session attendance. RESULTS: We enrolled 126 participants (mean age, 51.5 years; 62.7% female). Baseline perceptions about telehealth were generally positive. Eighty-eight participants (69.8%) initiated telehealth PT, with a median of 5 sessions attended. Participants in telehealth PT were generally satisfied (76.3%), although only 39.5% perceived the quality equal to in-person PT. Telehealth PT participants reported significant improvement in LBP-related disability, pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, and sleep disturbance at 10- and 26-week follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings generally support the feasibility of telehealth PT using videoconferencing. Implementation and participant outcomes were similar to in-person PT as delivered in the participating health care systems. We identified barriers that may detract from the patient experience and likelihood of benefitting from telehealth PT. More research is needed to optimize and evaluate the most effective strategies for providing telehealth PT for patients with chronic LBP.

Perceptions of Telehealth Physical Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 prompted the rapid adoption of telehealth to provide physical therapy. Patients' perceptions about telehealth physical therapy are mostly unknown. This study describes perceptions of telehealth physical therapy among patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Methods: This study surveyed participants in an ongoing multisite clinical trial of nonpharmacological LBP treatments. Participants were asked about their willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy and with other providers and completed the PROMIS-29. Results: Surveys were received from 102 participants (mean age = 48.5 [standard deviation; SD = 11.6]). Thirty-six (35.3%) expressed willingness to receive telehealth physical therapy, 22 were neutral (21.6%), and 44 were unwilling (43.1%). The percentage expressing willingness for telehealth physical therapy was lower than it was for family medicine (p < 0.001) or mental health (p < 0.001). Older (p = 0.049) and Black participants (p = 0.01) more likely expressed willingness to use telehealth for physical therapy. Conclusion: Education and familiarity may help patients view telehealth physical therapy more favorably. Clinical Trial Registration (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03859713).

Rehabilitation After Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Patellar instability resulting from subluxation or dislocation is a painful and commonly recurring condition. Retinacular restraints control patellar tracking, limiting the movement of the patella in the trochlear groove. The medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) is considered the main soft tissue stabilizer against lateral displacement. Few studies of patellar instability discuss rehabilitation after MPFL reconstruction. In this review, we discuss the phases of rehabilitation after MPFL reconstruction, typical interventions by rehabilitation specialists, and patient-specific guidelines for return to prior level of function. The Musculoskeletal Institute at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (a collaboration of orthopedic surgeons, primary care sports medicine physicians, and clinicians from the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) presents its rehabilitation protocol with phase-specific guidelines for progression after MPFL reconstruction. This evidence-based protocol is a generalized approach that is customized for each patient's needs.

Identification of Metastatic Lesions in a Patient With Low Back Pain Following a Motor Vehicle Collision.

A 58-year-old man was referred to physical therapy with a primary complaint of intermittent low back pain (LBP) 2 weeks after being in a motor vehicle collision. The absence of red flags justified the initiation of treatment, but when symptoms of unrelenting LBP emerged, he was referred to his primary care physician with a request for further medical workup. Before further imaging work-up was performed, the patient presented to the emergency room with a urinary complaint; this, in combination with unrelenting LBP, prompted further imaging follow-up. Lumbar/thoracic spine magnetic resonance imaging revealed multiple compression fractures and diffuse bone marrow heterogeneity consistent with a malignant infiltrative marrow process. The patient underwent additional laboratory testing and a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy that confirmed the diagnosis of multiple myeloma.