Delays in sexual health care among patients attending New York City Sexual Health Clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic, March 2020 to February 2021.

BACKGROUND: Public health emergencies can lead to reduced or suspended services in sexual health clinics (SHCs), raising questions about optimal ways to maintain access to care. We examined changes in sexual behaviors, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use, telehealth preference, and correlates of delayed sexual health care among patients attending New York City (NYC) publicly funded SHCs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: 470 patients from four SHCs (July-September 2021) completed a self-administered survey that collected data on access to sexual health care, overall and over three distinct time periods [Spring 2020 (COVID-19 wave 1), Summer 2020, Fall 2020/Winter 2021 (COVID-19 wave 2)]. We used log-binomial models to examine factors associated with delayed sexual health care. RESULTS: Participants reporting multiple in-person sexual contacts increased from 28% to 57% (P < 0.0001) between the first and second wave. Almost half of participants (35/72) taking HIV PrEP cited decreased use. Over 90% (423/460) of participants preferred in-person clinic visits over telehealth. Overall, delays in routine and urgent sexual health care were reported by 34% (129/375) and 12% (46/373) of participants, respectively. More men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender/gender non-conforming/nonbinary (TGNCNB) individuals experienced delayed care compared with women [MSM: aPR 1.43 (95% CI, 1.00-2.03); TGNCNB: 1.67 (1.04-2.69)]. Compared with participants who primarily sought sexual health care from private providers, those who primarily used SHCs experienced significantly more delayed care [1.72 (1.14-2.59)]. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in sexual health care access can have serious implications for certain patient populations. Additional resources are needed to maintain access to sexual health clinic services.

Ulnar nerve neurodynamic test: study of the normal sensory response in asymptomatic individuals.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: To describe and analyze normal sensory responses to the ulnar upper-limb neurodynamic test (ULNT3) and to investigate the influence of sex and arm dominance. BACKGROUND: Neurodynamic tests are commonly used in the clinical evaluation of patients with musculoskeletal pain disorders. While the normal responses of other upper-limb neurodynamic tests have been previously investigated, there are no studies that have reported the normal responses for the ULNT3. METHODS: A total of 68 asymptomatic individuals between 18 and 50 years of age volunteered to participate in the study. Of these, 57 (29 women, 28 men) were eligible for the study. The variables measured were pain intensity using a numeric rating scale, shoulder abduction angle, and quality and distribution of symptoms at the point of pain tolerance of the ULNT3. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences in pain intensity and shoulder abduction angle between the sexes, with women having higher perceived pain and lower shoulder angle than men (P<.05). There was a significant difference of 6.6° (95% confidence interval: 1.1°, 12.1°) in shoulder abduction angle during the ULNT3 (P<.05) between the dominant arm and nondominant arm. The symptoms most often described during application of the ULNT3 were stretching (90%), followed by pain, and the most frequent location of symptoms was the anteromedial half of the forearm. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide the normal shoulder abduction angle and quality and distribution of symptoms for the ULNT3. These data can be used by clinicians as a reference when using the ULNT3 in their clinical reasoning and decision making.

Pain treatment for patients with osteoarthritis and central sensitization.

Osteoarthritis is one of the most frequent, disabling, and costly pathologies of modern society. Among the main aims of osteoarthritis management are pain control and functional ability improvement. The exact cause of osteoarthritis pain remains unclear. In addition to the pathological changes in articular structures, changes in central pain processing or central sensitization appear to be involved in osteoarthritis pain. The latter calls for a broader approach to the management of patients with osteoarthritis. Yet, the scientific literature offers scant information addressing the treatment of central sensitization, specifically in patients with osteoarthritis. Interventions such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and neuroscience education potentially target cognitive-emotional sensitization (and descending facilitation), and centrally acting drugs and exercise therapy can improve endogenous analgesia (descending inhibition) in patients with osteoarthritis. Future studies should assess these new treatment avenues.