Feasibility of an intensive interprofessional lifestyle medicine program for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the setting of lifestyle-related chronic disease

Early Outcomes of Orthopedic Pre-surgical Patients Enrolled in an Intensive, Interprofessional Lifestyle Medicine Program to Optimize Health

Recently, lifestyle medicine (LSM) application has shown feasibility for musculoskeletal pain patients with co-existing lifestyle-related chronic diseases. This study describes early results of a LSM program for musculoskeletal patients with goals to optimize health prior to orthopedic surgery. Fifty-four patients (age: 61 ± 11 years; 39 [72%] females) completed the program from 3/8/22-12/1/23. Data included patient goals, utilization, goal attainment, and patient outcomes. Most patients (41/54 [76%]) enrolled with established surgical dates. Mean BMI was 43.2 ± 5.3 kg/m2, and 89% had ≥2 lifestyle-related chronic diseases. The majority reported impaired sleep (79%) and zero cumulative minutes of physical activity/week (57%). Mean program duration was 13 ± 8 weeks involving 5 ± 4 visits with members of the interprofessional team. Fifty-two (96%) patients successfully attained pre-program goals, and 49/54 (91%) met their surgical goal. Of the patients enrolled without surgical dates, 11/13 (85%) optimized their health and proceeded to surgery. Forty-two (78%) patients reported decreases in weight and BMI, averaging 11 ± 7 lbs and 1.8 ± 1.3 kg/m2, respectively. Rates of improvement in pain, PROMIS-10 physical and mental health, and PHQ-4 were 52%, 37%, 45%, and 47%, respectively. These data demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a LSM program to address whole-person health optimization and enable orthopedic patients to improve lifestyle behaviors and proceed to orthopedic surgery.

Provider-Perceived Value of Interprofessional Team Meetings as a Core Element of a Lifestyle Medicine Program: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of One Center's Experience

Interprofessional care improves outcomes for medically complex patients and may be a valuable addition to standard lifestyle medicine practice, but implementation barriers exist. The purpose of this study was to explore the key features, perceived impact, and implementation considerations related to holding interprofessional team meetings as part of an intensive lifestyle medicine program. In this mixed-methods study, focus groups were conducted with 15 lifestyle medicine clinicians from various healthcare disciplines who had participated in interprofessional team meetings. Quantitative descriptive statistics of the meeting minutes were also calculated. Clinician-perceived benefits from participating in interprofessional team meetings included increased acquisition of knowledge, access to other clinicians, collaborative decision-making, patient satisfaction, and achievement of patient-centered goals. Participants described the importance of preparing an agenda for the interprofessional team meetings in advance, but a major implementation challenge was the time required to prepare for and conduct the meetings. Commitment and financial support by organization and program leadership were reported as key facilitators to implementing the meetings. Clinicians perceive significant value from incorporation of interprofessional team meetings into an intensive lifestyle medicine program, but successful implementation of meetings requires investment from all levels within a healthcare system.

Predictors of Patient Engagement With an Interprofessional Lifestyle Medicine Program

Background

Changes in lifestyle habits can reduce morbidity and mortality, but not everyone who can benefit from lifestyle intervention is ready to do so.

Purpose

To describe characteristics of patients who did and did not engage with a lifestyle medicine program, and to identify predictors of engagement.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 276 adult patients who presented for consultation to a goal-directed, individualized, interprofessional lifestyle medicine program. The primary outcome was patients' extent of engagement. Candidate predictors considered in multivariable multinomial logistic regression models included baseline sociodemographic, psychological, and health-related variables.

Results

A predictor of full engagement over no engagement was having private or Medicare insurance (rather than Medicaid, other, or no insurance) (OR 4.2 [95% CI 1.3-14.2], P = .021). A predictor of partial engagement over no engagement was having a primary goal to lose weight (OR 3.1 [1.1-8.4], P = .026).

Conclusions

System-level efforts to support coverage of lifestyle medicine services by all insurers may improve equitable engagement with lifestyle medicine programs. Furthermore, when assessing patients' readiness to engage with a lifestyle medicine program, clinicians should consider and address their goals of participation.

Predictors of Progressing Toward Lifestyle Change Among Participants of an Interprofessional Lifestyle Medicine Program

Background

Therapeutic lifestyle change can be challenging, and not every attempt is successful.

Purpose

To identify predictors of making progress toward lifestyle change among patients who participate in a lifestyle medicine program.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 205 adults who enrolled in a goal-directed, individualized, interprofessional lifestyle medicine program. The primary outcome was whether, by the end of participation with the program, a patient reported making progress toward lifestyle change. Candidate predictors included sociodemographic, psychological, and health-related variables.

Results

Among 205 patients (median (IQR) age 58 (44-66) years, 164 (80%) female), 93 (45%) made progress toward lifestyle change during program participation. A predictor of making progress was being motivated by stress reduction (OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.1-7.6], P = .038). Predictors of not making progress included having a primary goal of losing weight (OR .3 [.2-.8], P = .012) and having a history of depression (OR .4 [.2-.7], P = .041).

Conclusions

To maximize a patient's likelihood of successfully making lifestyle changes, clinicians and patients may consider focusing on identifying goals that are immediately and palpably affected by lifestyle change. Additional research is warranted to identify effective program-level approaches to maximize the likelihood of success for patients with a history of depression.

Arthritis Foundation/HSS Workshop on Hip Osteoarthritis, Part 3: Rehabilitation and Exercise

Far more publications are available for osteoarthritis of the knee than of the hip. Recognizing this research gap, the Arthritis Foundation (AF), in partnership with the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), convened an in-person meeting of thought leaders to review the state of the science of and clinical approaches to hip osteoarthritis. This article summarizes the recommendations gleaned from 5 presentations given on hip-related rehabilitation at the 2023 Hip Osteoarthritis Clinical Studies Conference, which took place on February 17 and 18, 2023, in New York City.

Relationship of Chronic Systemic Inflammation to Both Chronic Lifestyle-Related Diseases and Osteoarthritis: The Case for Lifestyle Medicine for Osteoarthritis

Systemic inflammation is a root cause of lifestyle-related chronic diseases and may also play a role in the development and progression of osteoarthritis (OA). Lifestyle medicine seeks to treat, prevent, and reverse lifestyle-related chronic disease via 6 pillars: nutrition, sleep health, stress management, physical activity, social connections, and risky behavior avoidance/reduction. This article presents a review of the literature in which we assess the connections between the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine, chronic systemic inflammation, and OA. We also discuss the whole-person approach that lifestyle medicine interventions can provide to reduce chronic systemic inflammation and affect the development or progression of OA.

Unique characteristics of patients who choose an intensive lifestyle medicine program to address chronic musculoskeletal pain

INTRODUCTION

Factors that motivate musculoskeletal patients to pursue an intensive, lifestyle medicine-based approach to care are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether, compared to patients seeking musculoskeletal care through traditional pathways, patients who choose an intensive lifestyle medicine program for musculoskeletal pain endorse greater physical dysfunction, worse psychological health, and/or more biopsychosocial comorbidities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of existing medical records from 2018 to 2021.

SETTING

Orthopedic department of one academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Fifty consecutive patients who enrolled in an intensive lifestyle medicine program to address a musculoskeletal condition. Comparison groups were the following: (1) 100 patients who presented for standard nonoperative musculoskeletal care, and (2) 100 patients who presented for operative evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon and qualified for joint arthroplasty.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were age-adjusted, between-group differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical and psychological health measures. Secondary outcomes were between-group differences in sociodemographic and medical history characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients who enrolled in the intensive lifestyle medicine program were more racially diverse (non-White race: lifestyle cohort 34% vs. comparison cohorts 16%-18%, p ≤ .029) and had a higher prevalence of obesity and diabetes than both comparison groups (mean body mass index: lifestyle cohort 37.6 kg/m2 vs. comparison cohorts 29.3-32.0, p < .001; diabetes prevalence: lifestyle cohort 32% vs. comparison cohorts 12%-16%, p ≤ .024). Compared to standard nonoperative patients, there were no clear between-group differences in PROMIS physical or psychological health scores. Compared to standard operative evaluation patients, patients in the lifestyle program reported worse anxiety but less pain interference (PROMIS Anxiety: B = 3.8 points [95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 7.4], p = .041; Pain interference: B = -3.6 [-6.0 to -1.2], p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to musculoskeletal patients who sought care through traditional pathways, patients who chose an intensive lifestyle medicine pathway had a higher prevalence of metabolic comorbidities, but there was substantial overlap in patients' physical, psychological, and sociodemographic characteristics.

Interpretation of PROMIS Depression and Anxiety Measures Compared with DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria in Musculoskeletal Patients

There is growing awareness among orthopaedic clinicians that mental health directly impacts clinical musculoskeletal outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used for mental health screening in this context, but proper interpretation of patient scores remains unclear. The purpose of the present study was to compare musculoskeletal patients' PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores with a board-certified clinical psychologist's assessment of their depression and/or anxiety diagnoses, as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria.

Methods

In this cross-sectional analysis, existing medical records were reviewed for 50 patients who presented to an interdisciplinary program within a tertiary care orthopaedic department for the treatment of ≥1 musculoskeletal condition. All patients completed PROMIS Depression and Anxiety measures and were evaluated by a board-certified clinical psychologist. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores as compared with the psychologist's diagnosis of a DSM-5 depressive or anxiety disorder.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (56%) were diagnosed by the psychologist with a DSM-5 depressive disorder, and 15 (30%) were diagnosed with a DSM-5 anxiety disorder. The ROC analysis for PROMIS Depression had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82. The optimal score cutoff to predict a diagnosis of a DSM-5 depressive disorder was ≥53 (sensitivity, 79% [95% CI, 63% to 94%]; specificity, 86% [72% to 100%]; positive predictive value [PPV], 88% [75% to 100%]; negative predictive value [NPV], 76% [59% to 93%]). The ROC analysis for PROMIS Anxiety had an AUC of 0.67. The optimal score cutoff to predict a diagnosis of a DSM-5 anxiety disorder was ≥59 (sensitivity, 60% [95% CI, 35% to 85%]; specificity, 74% [60% to 89%]; PPV, 50% [27% to 73%]; and NPV, 81% [68% to 95%]).

Conclusions

Modestly elevated PROMIS Depression scores were suggestive of the presence of a DSM-5 depressive disorder, whereas elevations in PROMIS Anxiety scores seemed to have less association with DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Nevertheless, neither PROMIS measure demonstrated adequate discriminant ability to definitively identify patients who met DSM-5 criteria.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Digital Mental Health Intervention Plus Usual Care Compared to Usual Care Only and Usual Care Plus In-Person Psychological Counseling for Orthopedic Patients with Symptoms of Depression and/or Anxiety: Cohort Study (Preprint)

Background

Depression and anxiety frequently coexist with chronic musculoskeletal pain and can negatively impact patients’ responses to standard orthopedic treatments. Nevertheless, mental health is not routinely addressed in the orthopedic care setting. If effective, a digital mental health intervention may be a feasible and scalable method of addressing mental health in an orthopedic setting.

Objective

We aimed to compare 2-month changes in mental and physical health between orthopedic patients who received a digital mental health intervention in addition to usual orthopedic care, those who received usual orthopedic care only (without a specific mental health intervention), and those who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective cohort study involving ancillary analysis of a pilot feasibility study, 2-month self-reported health changes were compared between a cohort of orthopedic patients who received access to a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) and 2 convenience sample comparison cohorts (patients who received usual orthopedic care without a specific mental health intervention and patients who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan). All patients were 18 years or older and reported elevated symptoms of depression or anxiety at an orthopedic clinic visit (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Depression or Anxiety score ≥55). The digital intervention was a multi-component mobile app that used chatbot technology and text-based access to human counselors to provide cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and sleep tools, among other features, with an emphasis on behavioral activation and pain acceptance. Outcomes of interest were between-cohort differences in the 2-month longitudinal changes in PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores (primary outcomes) and PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function scores (secondary outcomes).

Results

Among 153 patients (mean age 55, SD 15 years; 128 [83.7%] female; 51 patients per cohort), patients who received the digital mental health intervention showed clinically meaningful improvements at the 2-month follow-up for all PROMIS measures (mean longitudinal improvement 2.8-3.7 points; P≤.02). After controlling for age and BMI, the improvements in PROMIS Depression, Pain Interference, and Physical Function were meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received usual orthopedic care (mean between-group difference 2.6-4.8 points; P≤.04). Improvements in PROMIS Physical Function were also meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received in-person psychological counseling (mean between-group difference 2.4 points; P=.04).

Conclusions

Patients who received a digital mental health intervention as part of orthopedic care reported greater 2-month mean improvements in depression, pain interference, and physical function than patients who received usual orthopedic care. They also reported a greater mean improvement in physical function and comparable improvements in depression, anxiety, and pain interference compared with orthopedic patients who received in-person psychological counseling.