Are Nonpharmacologic Interventions Delivered Through Synchronous Telehealth as Effective and Safe as In-Person Interventions for the Management of Patients With Nonacute Musculoskeletal Conditions? A Systematic Rapid Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether nonpharmacologic interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth are as effective and safe compared with in-person interventions for the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions in improving pain, functioning, self-reported recovery, psychological outcomes, or health-related quality of life using rapid review methods. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or French; we updated our search in January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: One reviewer screened citations in 2 phases (phase 1: title/abstract; phase 2: full-text) selecting RCTs comparing synchronous telehealth with in-person care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. A random 10% sample was screened by 2 independent reviewers with minimum 95% agreement prior to full screening. One reviewer critically appraised and one reviewer validated appraisal for eligible RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted participant characteristics, setting, sample size, interventions, comparisons, follow-up period, and outcome data. A second author validated data extraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: We summarized the findings narratively. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that synchronous telehealth (ie, videoconference or telephone calls) alone or in combination with in-person care leads to similar outcomes as in-person care alone for nonspecific low back pain, generalized osteoarthritis, hip or knee osteoarthritis, and nonacute headaches in adults. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous telehealth may be an option for the management of nonacute musculoskeletal conditions in adults. However, our results may not be generalizable to rural or low socioeconomic populations. Future research should investigate the outcomes associated the use of new technologies, such as videoconference.

Impact of Confinement in Patients under Long-Term Noninvasive Ventilation during the First Wave of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Remarkable Resilience.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Switzerland, confinement was imposed to limit transmission and protect vulnerable persons. These measures may have had a negative impact on perceived quality of care and symptoms in patients with chronic disorders. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients under long-term home noninvasive ventilation (LTHNIV) for chronic respiratory failure (CRF) were negatively affected by the 56-day confinement (March-April 2020). METHODS: A questionnaire-based survey exploring mood disturbances (HAD), symptom scores related to NIV (S3-NIV), and perception of health-care providers during confinement was sent to all patients under LTHNIV followed up by our center. Symptom scores and data obtained by ventilator software were compared between confinement and the 56 days prior to confinement. RESULTS: Of a total of 100 eligible patients, 66 were included (median age: 66 years [IQR: 53-74]): 35 (53%) with restrictive lung disorders, 20 (30%) with OHS or SRBD, and 11 (17%) with COPD or overlap syndrome. Prevalence of anxiety (n = 7; 11%) and depressive (n = 2; 3%) disorders was remarkably low. Symptom scores were slightly higher during confinement although this difference was not clinically relevant. Technical data regarding ventilation, including compliance, did not change. Patients complained of isolation and lack of social contact. They felt supported by their relatives and caregivers but complained of the lack of regular contact and information by health-care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients under LTHNIV for CRF showed a remarkable resilience during the SARS-CoV-2 confinement period. Comments provided may be helpful for managing similar future health-care crises.

Meaning in life and demoralization: a mental-health reading perspective of suicidality in the time of COVID-19.

Consequences on mental health have been reported in general population, vulnerable individuals, psychiatric patients, and healthcare professionals. It is urgently necessary to study mental health issues in order to set priorities for public health policies and implement effective interventions. Suicidality is one of the most extreme outcomes of a mental health crisis. It is currently too early to know what the effect of COVID-19 will be on suicidality. However, authoritative commentary papers alert that most of the factors precipitating suicide are, and probably will be for a long time, present at several individual existence levels. A number of prevention measures and research considerations have been drawn up. A point of the latter, recommended by the International COVID-10 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration, states that "the COVID-19 suicide research response should be truly multidisciplinary. This will foster research that addresses the different aspects and layers of risk and resilience.It will also foster research that informs prevention efforts by taking a range of perspectives" (Niederkrotenthaler et al., 2020). In this light, we would like to propose a reading perspective of suicidality that takes into account Meaning in Life (MiL) and demoralization. Both of the constructs were studied in heterogeneous populations with extreme life situations having led to a fracture between a "before" and an "after", and play a role in affecting suicidality, respectively as resilience and risk factors. In clinical practice, during these unprecedent times, we wish that this more inclusive approach could: 1) contribute to prevention, by delineating more individualized suicidal risk profiles in persons conventionally non-considered at risk but here exposed to an extremely uncommon experience, 2) enrich supportive/psychotherapeutic interventions, by broadening the panel of means to some aspects constitutive of the existential condition of a person who is brutally confronted with something unexpected, incomprehensible and, in some ways, still unpredictable.