An Umbrella Review of Self-Management Interventions for Health Conditions With Symptom Overlap With Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence for the effectiveness of self-management interventions for chronic health conditions that have symptom overlap with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in order to extract recommendations for self-management intervention in persons with TBI. DESIGN: An umbrella review of existing systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized studies targeting self-management of chronic conditions and specific outcomes relevant to persons with TBI. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search of 5 databases was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction using the Covidence web-based review platform. Quality assessment was conducted using criteria adapted from the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2). RESULTS: A total of 26 reviews met the inclusion criteria, covering a range of chronic conditions and a range of outcomes. Seven reviews were of moderate or high quality and focused on self-management in persons with stroke, chronic pain, and psychiatric disorders with psychotic features. Self-management interventions were found to have positive effects on quality of life, self-efficacy, hope, reduction of disability, pain, relapse and rehospitalization rates, psychiatric symptoms, and occupational and social functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are encouraging with regard to the effectiveness of self-management interventions in patients with symptoms similar to those of TBI. However, reviews did not address adaptation of self-management interventions for those with cognitive deficits or for populations with greater vulnerabilities, such as low education and older adults. Adaptations for TBI and its intersection with these special groups may be needed.

The use of peer support groups for emergency physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To test the feasibility, receptivity, and preliminary effectiveness of peer support groups for emergency medicine physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and gain a better understanding of their experiences with peer support. Methods: This pilot study used a quasi-experimental design to assess change in symptoms of distress, anxiety, depression and burn-out before and after participating in a virtual, group-based peer support intervention for a duration of 8 weeks. Pre-post change analyses were performed using two-sided, paired t tests. Feasibility was measured by attendance data to demonstrate the use of the intervention. Receptivity was measured using a global change rating and net promoter score at the end of each session and 8-week period, respectively. During the final session, qualitative data on physician experience was collected and then analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Twenty-four emergency medicine physicians participated in the pilot study. The attendance goal was met by 20 (24, 83%) physicians and 19 (22, 86%) physicians reported they would recommend peer support groups to a friend of colleague. Positive standardized response mean effect sizes indicated modest improvement in nine of 12 symptom measurements with marginal significance (p < 0.10) for improvement in guilt [20, Effect Size (ES) = 0.45] and depression (21, ES = 0.39). Qualitative findings revealed high overall benefit with few adverse impacts of participation. Conclusions: Results demonstrate high physician receptivity, feasibility, and benefit from participation in peer support groups. Promising signs of improvement in distress, anxiety, depression, and burn out symptoms warrant additional studies with larger sample sizes and more robust research designs to establish the evidence base for peer support in the physician population.

Brief Educational Video plus Telecare to Enhance Recovery for Older Emergency Department Patients with Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: an update to the study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This update describes changes to the Brief Educational Tool to Enhance Recovery (BETTER) trial in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS/DESIGN: The original protocol was published in Trials. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BETTER trial converted to remote recruitment in April 2020. All recruitment, consent, enrollment, and randomization now occur by phone within 24 h of the acute care visit. Other changes to the original protocol include an expansion of inclusion criteria and addition of new recruitment sites. To increase recruitment numbers, eligibility criteria were expanded to include individuals with chronic pain, non-daily opioid use within 2 weeks of enrollment, presenting musculoskeletal pain (MSP) symptoms for more than 1 week, hospitalization in past 30 days, and not the first time seeking medical treatment for presenting MSP pain. In addition, recruitment sites were expanded to other emergency departments and an orthopedic urgent care clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting from an orthopedic urgent care clinic and transitioning to remote operations not only allowed for continued participant enrollment during the pandemic but also resulted in some favorable outcomes, including operational efficiencies, increased enrollment, and broader generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118595 . Registered on October 8, 2019.

COVID-19 Status Differentially Affects Olfaction: A Prospective Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: The symptoms and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection have yet to be determined, and evaluating possible early signs is critical to determine which patients should be tested and treated. The objective of this ongoing study is to evaluate initial and short-term rhinologic symptoms, olfactory ability, and general quality of life in patients undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control. SETTING: Academic institute. METHODS: Adult patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 were prospectively enrolled and separated into positive and negative groups. Each participant completed 4 validated patient-reported outcome measures. The UPSIT (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test) was distributed to patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive. RESULTS: The positive group reported significantly decreased sense of smell and taste on the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) as compared with the negative group (mean ± SD: 3.4 ± 1.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.4, P < .001). The positive group had a much higher probability of reporting a decrease in smell/taste as "severe" or "as bad as it can be" (63.3% vs 5.8%) with an odds ratio of 27.6 (95% CI, 5.9-128.8). There were no differences between groups for overall SNOT-22 domain scores, PHQ-4 depression/anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire-4), and 5-Level EQ-5D quality-of-life scores. Mean Self-MOQ (Self-reported Mini Olfactory Questionnaire) scores were 7.0 ± 5.6 for the positive group and 1.8 ± 4.0 for the negative group (P < .001). The mean UPSIT score was 28.8 ± 7.2 in the positive group. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients who are SARS-CoV-2 positive report severe olfactory and gustatory dysfunction via the Self-MOQ and SNOT-22 as compared with symptomatic patients testing negative.