Receiving Long-Term Disability or Pursuing a Legal Claim May Prevent Recovery From Chronic Dizziness.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Chronic dizziness (CD) and imbalance have multiple etiologies. CD is strongly linked with psychiatric and psychological comorbidities, thus an interdisciplinary approach, including psychopharmacological interventions, is recommended. Despite the use of this comprehensive treatment approach, the recovery of individuals with CD that pursue long-term disability (LTD) insurance or legal claims (LC) appears hampered. As such, we aimed to compare symptom recovery from CD in an interdisciplinary setting between patients receiving LTD/LC versus those who were not, and to explore the factors that may contribute to changes in symptom severity. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Dizziness-related diagnoses were extracted from the charts of 195 adults in an outpatient interdisciplinary neurotology clinic in Toronto, Canada. Patients with baseline Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Dizziness Catastrophizing Scale (DCS) assessments between August 2012 and July 2018 and a mean follow-up visit within approximately 10 months were included. The study participants were categorized as "LTD/LC+" (n = 92) or "LTD/LC-" (n = 103), referring to either receiving or pursuing LTD/LC or not, respectively. RESULTS: There were differences in the mean percentage changes in DHI (t[187] = 3.02, P = .003) and DCS (t[179] = 2.63, P = .009) scores between LTD/LC+ and LTD/LC- patients. LTD/LC+ patients showed 8.0% and 7.6% mean increases in DHI and DCS scores, respectively, whereas LTD/LC- patients showed 21.5% and 25.9% reductions in DHI and DCS scores, respectively, controlling for age, sex, and baseline illness severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving or pursuing LTD insurance or a legal claim did not improve from CD and dizziness catastrophizing compared to those who were not. Future studies are required to test these findings prospectively and to determine the factors that may contribute to symptom recovery, including the anxiety-aggravating effects of the LTD/LC process and the deleterious consequences of developing a sick-role while afflicted with a chronic illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:655-661, 2022.

Interdisciplinary integration of nursing and psychiatry (INaP) improves dizziness-related disability.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The traditional medical care model of "assess and refer" in a sequential fashion fails to recognize the complexities that arise due to overlapping physical and psychiatric comorbidities experienced by patients with chronic dizziness or imbalance, thus resulting in inadequate treatment outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a novel interdisciplinary approach to care that integrates nursing and psychiatry (INaP) on dizziness-related disability. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We compared the change in clinical assessment scores (i.e., Dizziness Handicap Inventory [DHI], Dizziness Catastrophizing Scale) at approximately 8 months follow-up between those who did (INaP+) and did not receive INaP (INaP-). Data from 229 patients with dizziness or imbalance referred to an interdisciplinary neurotology clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada were acquired from August 2012 to December 2016 and January 2011 to December 2013 for the INaP+ and INaP- groups, respectively. RESULTS: A mean group difference in the percentage change in DHI scores was found, with greater reductions in dizziness-related disability in the INaP+ group (n = 121) versus the INaP- group (n = 108). This remained significant after controlling for age, gender, baseline illness severity, and duration between baseline and follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: The novel interdisciplinary approach of incorporating INaP appears to be more effective than interdisciplinary care without INaP in reducing dizziness-related disability in patients with chronic dizziness or imbalance. Clinical settings should consider the addition of INaP to achieve better patient outcomes. Future studies are required to test the hypothesis that INaP is more efficient and cost-effective than the traditional model of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 130:1800-1804, 2020.

Interdisciplinary integration of nursing and psychiatry (INaP) for the treatment of dizziness.

OBJECTIVES: The traditional medical care model of "assess and refer" requires revamping to address the multifaceted needs of patients with chronic dizziness and imbalance by adopting an interdisciplinary approach to care that integrates nursing and psychiatry (INaP). We aim to present a novel interdisciplinary approach that incorporates INaP in the care of patients with chronic dizziness and imbalance. METHODS: Presentation of an interdisciplinary model of care that incorporates INaP provided at the Toronto General Hospital in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: Interdisciplinary care incorporating INaP, which includes the provision of support from an interdisciplinary health care team (ie, neurotologist, neurologist, psychiatrist, physiotherapist, and nurse clinician), psychoeducation about the interaction between chronic dizziness and psychiatric comorbidities, and ongoing access to medical and psychosocial assessment and intervention, addresses the physical and emotional aspects of patients' experience with chronic dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: The novel comprehensive interdisciplinary approach incorporating INaP may be more effective than interdisciplinary care without INaP in improving clinical outcomes in patients with chronic dizziness. In the subsequent study, we present data comparing patients treated for chronic dizziness and imbalance with and without the integration of INaP in an interdisciplinary setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 130:1792-1799, 2020.

Association Between Catastrophizing and Dizziness-Related Disability Assessed With the Dizziness Catastrophizing Scale.

Importance: Catastrophizing is a maladaptive thought process that involves irrational fear and worry about anticipated or actual symptoms. Although clinically relevant, the role of catastrophizing in patients with chronic dizziness or imbalance has not yet been explored to our knowledge. Objectives: To validate a measure of dizziness catastrophizing and to assess its association with dizziness-related disability compared with other negative affect constructs (eg, anxiety and depression). Design, Setting, and Participants: For this retrospective medical record review, the Dizziness Catastrophizing Scale (DCS), a dizziness-specific catastrophizing assessment tool, was adapted from the previously validated Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Psychometric evaluation of the DCS was performed. In addition, the associations of dizziness catastrophizing and positive and negative affectivity with dizziness-related disability were assessed using structural equation modeling and regression analyses. Data were collected using a retrospective medical record review from April 27, 2010, to June 25, 2014. The dates of analysis were June 3 to August 15, 2017. The setting was the Multidisciplinary Neurotology Clinic at the Toronto General Hospital (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Participants were 457 adult outpatients with dizziness or imbalance who were referred to the clinic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Psychometric properties of the DCS and its association with dizziness-related disability, as measured with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. Results: Among 457 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [15.4] years; 154 [33.7%] male), the DCS demonstrated good convergent (r = 0.78, P < .001) and discriminant validity (r = -0.40, P < .001) with the negative and positive affectivity, respectively; internal consistency (α = .95); and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; P < .001 at the 95% CI). An exploratory dimension reduction analysis revealed a single latent component of the DCS. The results of the structural equation modeling and regression analyses revealed that dizziness catastrophizing, although associated with negative affectivity (eg, symptoms of anxiety and depression), was independently associated with dizziness-related disability (standardized ß = 0.378; P < .001). Furthermore, a strong association was found between catastrophizing and dizziness-related disability across different dizziness-related diagnoses (r ≥ 0.6; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the DCS was a valid and reliable measure for evaluating catastrophic thinking in patients with dizziness, which was independently associated with dizziness-related disability. Future studies should investigate the influence of alleviating symptoms of catastrophizing on functional outcomes in patients with dizziness or imbalance, the results of which will help guide novel approaches to the clinical care of patients with chronic dizziness.

Efficacy of the Power Balance Silicone Wristband: a single-blind, randomized, triple placebo-controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The Power Balance Silicone Wristband (Power Balance LLC, Laguna Niguel, CA) (power balance band; PBB) consists of a silicone wristband, incorporating two holograms, which is meant to confer improvements in balance on the wearer. Despite its popularity, the PBB has become somewhat controversial, with a number of articles being published in the news media regarding its efficacy. The PBB has not been formally evaluated but remains popular, largely based on anecdotal evidence. This study subjectively and objectively measured the effects of the PBB on balance in normal participants. METHODS: A prospective, single-blind, randomized, triple placebo-controlled crossover study was undertaken. Twenty participants underwent measurement using the modified Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance (mCTSIB) and gave subjective feedback (visual analogue scale [VAS]) for each of four band conditions: no band, a silicone band, a deactivated PBB, and the PBB. Participants acted as their own controls. RESULTS: The mean of the four mCTSIB conditions (eyes open and closed on both firm and compliant surfaces) was calculated. This mean value and condition 4 of the mCTSIB were compared between band conditions using path length (PL) and root mean square (RMS) as outcome measures. No significant differences were found between band conditions for PL (p  =  .91 and p  =  .94, respectively) and RMS (p  =  .85 and p  =  .96, respectively). VASs also showed no difference between bands (p  =  .25). CONCLUSION: The PBB appears to have no effect on mCTSIB or VAS measurements of balance.