What Explains Inequalities in Telehealth Utilization Among North Carolina Medicaid Beneficiaries?

Background: Increased availability of telehealth can improve access to health care. However, there is evidence of persistent disparities in telehealth usage, as well as among people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups and rural residents. The objective of our work was to explore the degree to which disparities in telehealth use for behavioral health (BH) and musculoskeletal (MSK) related services during the COVID-19 pandemic are explained by observed beneficiary- and area-level characteristics. Methods: Using North Carolina Medicaid claims data of Medicaid beneficiaries with BH or MSK conditions, we apply nonlinear regression-based decomposition analysis-based models developed by Kitagawa, Oaxaca, and Blinder to determine which observed variables are associated with racial, ethnic, and rural inequalities in telehealth usage. Results: In the BH cohort, we found statistically significant differences in telehealth usage by race in the adult population, and by race, Hispanic ethnicity, and rurality in the pediatric population. In the MSK cohort, we found significant inequities by Hispanic ethnicity and rurality among adults, and by race and rurality among children. Inequalities in telehealth use between groups were small, ranging from 0.7 percentage points between urban and rural adults with MSK conditions to 3.8 percentage points between white adults and people of color among those with BH conditions. Overall, we found that racial and ethnic inequalities in telehealth use are not well explained by the observed variables in our data. Rural disparities in telehealth use are better explained by observed variables, particularly area-level broadband internet use. Conclusions: For inequalities between rural and urban residents, our analysis provides observational evidence that infrastructure such as broadband internet access is an important driver of differences in telehealth use. For racial and ethnic inequalities, the pathways may be more complex and difficult to measure, particularly when relying on administrative data sources in place of more detailed data on individual-level socioeconomic factors.

Mind-Body Exercise Performed by Physical Therapists for Reducing Pain and Disability in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mind-body (MB) exercise interventions provided by physical therapists for reducing pain and disability in people with low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published in English between December 2010 and June 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of Pilates, yoga, and tai chi interventions performed by physical therapists on pain or disability outcomes in adults with musculoskeletal LBP were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Quality of evidence and risk of bias were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework and Cochrane risk of bias tools, respectively. DATA SYNTHESIS: 21,230 exercise trials were identified; 161 progressed to full-text review. Eight trials, 7 reporting on Pilates and 1 reporting on yoga, were included. Short-term outcomes for pain (SMD: -0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.65 to -0.021) and disability (SMD: -0.74 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.012) indicated MB exercise was more effective than control intervention. Tests for subgroup differences between studies with exercise vs non-exercise control groups revealed a moderating effect on short-term outcomes where larger effects were observed in studies with non-exercise comparators. Long-term outcomes for pain (SMD: -0.60; 95% CI:-1.43 to 0.23) and disability (SMD: -1.05; 95% CI:-3.51 to 1.41) suggested that MB exercise is not more effective than control interventions for pain or disability. Quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: Physical therapist-delivered MB exercise interventions, which overwhelmingly consisted of Pilates, were more effective than control in the short and long-term for pain and in the short-term for disability, with differences in the short-term effects lessened when compared with an active intervention. Pilates interventions delivered by physical therapists represent a viable tool for the clinical management of chronic LBP.

Association of Biomarkers with Individual and Multiple Body Sites of Pain: The Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project.

Introduction: Biochemical biomarkers may provide insight into musculoskeletal pain reported at individual or multiple body sites. The purpose of this study was to determine if biomarkers or pressure-pain threshold (PPT) were associated with individual or multiple sites of pain. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included 689 community-based participants. Self-reported symptoms (ie, pain, aching, or stiffness) were ascertained about the neck, upper back/thoracic, low back, shoulders, elbows, wrist, hands, hips, knees, ankles, and feet. Measured analytes included CXCL-6, RANTES, HA, IL-6, BDNF, OPG and NPY. A standard dolorimeter measured PPT. Logistic regression was used determine the association between biomarkers and PPT with individual and summed sites of pain. Results: Increased IL-6 and HA were associated with knee pain (OR=1.30, 95% CI 1.03, 1.64) and (OR=1.32, 95% CI 1.01, 1.73) respectively; HA was also associated with elbow/wrist/hand pain (OR=1.60, 95% CI 1.22, 2.09). Those with increased NPY levels were less likely to have shoulder pain (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.33, 0.93). Biomarkers HA (OR=1.50, 95% CI 1.07, 2.10), OPG (OR=1.74, 95% CI 1.00, 3.03), CXCL-6 (OR=1.75, 95% CI 1.02, 3.01) and decreased PPT (OR=3.97, 95% CI 2.22, 7.12) were associated with multiple compared to no sites of pain. Biomarker HA (OR=1.57, 95% CI 1.06, 2.32) and decreased PPT (OR=3.53, 95% CI 1.81, 6.88) were associated with multiple compared to a single site of pain. Conclusion: Biomarkers of inflammation (HA, OPG, IL-6 and CXCL-6), pain (NPY) and PPT may help to understand the etiology of single and multiple pain sites.

Interventions for the Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain: Revision 2021.

Low back pain (LBP) remains a musculoskeletal condition with an adverse societal impact. Globally, LBP is highly prevalent and a leading cause of disability. This is an update to the 2012 Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy (AOPT), formerly the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), clinical practice guideline (CPG) for LBP. The overall objective of this update was to provide recommendations on interventions delivered by physical therapists or studied in care settings that included physical therapy providers. It also focused on synthesizing new evidence, with the purpose of making recommendations for specific nonpharmacologic treatments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0304.