ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2025
Core program elements for equitable, effective participation in a lifestyle medicine program for chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Key determinants for successful lifestyle change to address chronic musculoskeletal pain: The patient's perspective.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing interest in using lifestyle medicine to address chronic musculoskeletal pain, challenges remain in equitably and effectively delivering lifestyle-related interventions to this population.
objectiveTo identify program elements that affect engagement with, and effective delivery of, a lifestyle medicine program for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and metabolic comorbidities. It was hypothesized that patients with more social disadvantage engage with proportionately greater group (vs. individual) and telehealth (vs. in-person) programming.
designMixed methods study.
settingLifestyle medicine program within a tertiary care academic center.
participantsAdults with chronic musculoskeletal pain and obesity-related metabolic comorbidities who presented to a musculoskeletal-oriented lifestyle medicine program.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresLogistic regression tested whether patients' level of social disadvantage (operationalized as national Area Deprivation Index [ADI] percentile) is associated with their proportion of program engagement via group (compared to individual) and telehealth (compared to in-person) visits. Semistructured interviews among a subgroup of 38 patients explored other program elements that patients perceived to affect equitable and effective program implementation.
resultsAmong 205 patients (median [interquartile range] age 60 [50-67] years, 169 [82%] female, 145 [71%] White race), worse social disadvantage was associated with an increased proportion of engagement via group (compared to individual) visits (odds ratio [OR], 1.13 per 10-unit increase in national ADI percentile [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.20], p < .001) and via telehealth (compared to in-person) visits (OR, 1.13 [1.07-1.20], p < .001). Patient-perceived keys for effective participation included the program's holistic, interprofessional, goal-oriented approach and genuine kindness and care by knowledgeable program clinicians. Some patients requested long-term periodic program check-ins to facilitate maintenance of lifestyle changes. Improved insurance coverage, clinic expansion to multiple sites, and after-hours programming would improve access for some patients.
conclusionsGroup visits (using shared medical appointments) and telehealth visits improve equitable access to lifestyle medicine interventions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.