Atchison, James W.

Objective: To evaluate access, clinical outcomes, engagement, and satisfaction associated with an advanced musculoskeletal virtual care model. Design: Retrospective cohort study of adults with musculoskeletal complaints referred to advanced orthopedic virtual physical therapy by Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation providers between July 2024 and April 2025. Outcomes included access to care, patient-reported outcome measures, pain intensity, plan-of-care completion, and patient satisfaction. Results: Of 137 referred patients, 86 (62.8%) completed evaluations; 70.9% of those (n=61) completed full care episodes — exceeding national completion benchmarks (71% vs. 43%). Among completers, 96% achieved Minimal Clinically Important Differences. Functional improvements were significant: Oswestry Disability Index −32.4, Neck Disability Index −29.5, Lower Extremity Functional Scale +26.6 (all P <.001). Pain decreased from 6.1 to 0.9 (−85%). Average care required 5.6 visits versus national benchmarks of 6–10. Patient satisfaction was exceptional (Net Promoter Score=100). Conclusion: Among patients who completed a full episode of care, this advanced virtual musculoskeletal model was associated with substantial functional improvement, pain reduction, and high satisfaction while requiring fewer visits than national averages. Because outcome analyses were limited to completers, these findings may not represent all referred patients. Prospective controlled studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness and scalability.

AbstractMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a prevalent comorbidity in patients with chronic pain conditions. Emerging evidence suggests that the relationship between MetS and chronic pain is bidirectional. This interplay involves complex mechanisms, including proinflammatory mediators in nociceptive modulation and pain‐induced lifestyle changes affecting metabolic function. This scoping review examines the association between MetS and chronic pain. We conducted a scoping review, including 28 studies. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included observational studies (cross‐sectional, case–control, and cohort studies) from the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. We identified studies on migraine (n = 9), spinal pain (n = 8), general chronic pain (n = 4), fibromyalgia syndrome (n = 3), carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1), osteoarthritis (n = 1), shoulder pain (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). Most studies used a cross‐sectional design and standard criteria to define MetS, with some exceptions. Individuals with MetS and spinal pain, fibromyalgia, or general chronic pain showed higher pain scores and increased functional limitations. MetS was common in patients with migraine, but its effect on pain severity was inconclusive. The relationship between MetS and other pain conditions requires further investigation to clarify the association and potential mechanisms. MetS is prevalent in patients with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain and functional outcomes. Health care providers should acknowledge the wide spectrum of MetS beyond obesity. This understanding may help identify those at risk for more severe chronic pain.

Abstract Objective The present study examined pre- to post-treatment changes in volumes for brain structures known to be associated with pain processing (thalamus, caudate, putamen, pallidum, hippocampus, amygdala, and accumbens) following an interdisciplinary pain management program. Design Twenty-one patients participating in a four-week interdisciplinary pain management program completed the study. The program consisted of individual and group therapies with the following disciplines: physical therapy, occupational therapy, pain psychology, biofeedback/relaxation training, nursing lectures, and medical management. All patients underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain before the start and at completion of the program. They also completed standard outcome measures assessing pain, symptoms of central sensitization, disability, mood, coping, pain acceptance, and impressions of change. Results Our results showed a significant increase in total brain volume, as well as increased volumes in the thalamus, hippocampus, and amygdala. As expected, we also found significant improvements in our standard outcome measures. The majority of patients rated themselves as much or very much improved. The increase in volume in the hippocampus was significantly associated with patient perceptions of change. However, the correlations were in the unexpected direction, such that greater increases in hippocampal volume were associated with perceptions of less improvement. Further exploratory analyses comparing patients by their opioid use status (use vs no use) showed differential program effects on volume increases in the hippocampus and amygdala. Conclusions These findings show that a four-week interdisciplinary pain management program resulted in changes in the brain, which adds objective findings further demonstrating program efficacy.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate whether physician–patient agreement of potential patient problem areas impacts subsequent patient enrollment in an interdisciplinary pain management program.DesignRetrospective chart review of 544 patients who underwent evaluation of their chronic pain. Physicians and their patients endorsed perceived patient problems during the evaluation. The potential problems included 7 clinical domains: pain, sleep, mood, physical functioning, ability to cope with pain, ability to manage pain flare‐ups, and pain medication effectiveness.ResultsResults indicated statistically significant levels of agreement among the physicians and their patients (free‐marginal kappa range, 0.19 to 0.94, P's < 0.001). The highest agreement occurred for pain and the lowest for pain medication effectiveness. Patients who enrolled in a recommended program did not differ from those who did not enroll based on either levels of agreement or average number of physician–patient agreements for the 7 clinical domains (P's > 0.05). Patients recommended for higher‐intensity programs were perceived by their evaluating physician to have a significantly greater number of problematic clinical domains than those recommended for less intense pain programs.ConclusionThe level of physician–patient agreement regarding the patients’ current difficulties did not appear to influence patients’ decisions to participate in interdisciplinary pain management. Extraneous, nonclinical factors may have had a greater impact on participation in interdisciplinary pain management than physician–patient agreement. Future research should focus on identifying these factors and their impact. Also, studying the impact of physician–patient agreement beyond enrollment status (eg, on successful program completion) may be helpful in potentially enhancing patient outcomes.