Migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) and headaches attributed to temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are prevalent in patients with TMD-pain. The objective was to describe the course of headache complaints as compared to the course of TMD complaints in TMD-pain patients with headache during usual care multidisciplinary treatment for TMD. This was a 12-week longitudinal observational study following adults with TMD-pain and headache during a usual-care multidisciplinary TMD-treatment. The Graded Chronic Pain Scale was used for both TMD and headache to measure pain-related disability (primary outcome measure), pain intensity, days with pain and days experiencing disability (secondary outcome measures). Stratified for the headache type, general linear modelling for repeated measures was used to analyze changes over time in the TMD complaints and the headache complaints. TMD-pain patients with migraine (n = 22) showed significant decrease of pain-related disability for both TMD and headache complaints over time. No difference in the effect over time was found between the two complaints. Patients with TMD-pain and TTH (n = 21) or headache attributed to TMD (n = 17) did not improve in disability over time. For the secondary outcome measures, the results were equivocal. In conclusion, TMD-pain patients with migraine, improvement in TMD-related disability was comparable to headache-related disability for TMD-pain patients with TTH or with headache attributed to TMD, no improvements in disability were found.
DOCUMENT
The objective of this study was to assess the association between psychosocial factors (in terms of anxiety, somatization, depression, and optimism) and pain (in terms of headache pain intensity and pain-related disability), in patients with a painful temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and one of the following headache types: migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), or headache attributed to TMD, corrected for the influence of bruxism. A retrospective study was conducted at an orofacial pain and dysfunction (OPD) clinic. Inclusion criteria were painful TMD, with migraine, TTH, and/or headache attributed to TMD. Linear regressions were performed to assess the influence of psychosocial variables on pain intensity and on pain-related disability, stratified per headache type. The regression models were corrected for bruxism and the presence of multiple headache types. A total of 323 patients (61% female; mean age 42.9, SD 14.4 years) were included. Headache pain intensity only had significant associations in TMD-pain patients with headache attributed to TMD, and anxiety showed the strongest relation (β = 0.353) with pain intensity. Pain-related disability was most strongly associated with depression in TMD-pain patients with TTH (β = 0.444), and with somatization in patients with headache attributed to TMD (β = 0.399). In conclusion, the influence of psychosocial factors on headache pain intensity and pain-related disability depends on the headache type presenting.
DOCUMENT
Background Identify and establish consensus regarding potential prognostic factors for the development of chronic pain after a first episode of idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. Design This study used two consensus group methods: a modified Nominal Group (m-NGT) and a Delphi Technique. Methods The goal of the m-NGT was to obtain and categorize a list of potential modifiable prognostic factors. These factors were presented to a multidisciplinary panel in a two-round Delphi survey, which was conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. The participants were asked whether factors identified are of prognostic value, whether these factors are modifiable, and how to measure these factors in clinical practice. Consensus was a priori defined as 70% agreement among participants. Results Eighty-four factors were identified and grouped into seven categories during the expert meeting using the modified NGT. A workgroup reduced the list to 47 factors and grouped them into 12 categories. Of these factors, 26 were found to be potentially prognostic for chronification of neck pain (> 70% agreement). Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be potentially modifiable by physiotherapists based on a two-round Delphi survey. Conclusion Based on an expert meeting (m-NGT) and a two-round Delphi survey, our study documents consensus (> 70%) on 26 prognostic factors. Twenty-one out of these 26 factors were found to be modifiable, and most factors were psychological in nature.
DOCUMENT
PurposeTo assess the experience and perceived added value of an e-Health application during the physical therapy treatment of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).Materials and methodsA mixed-methods study including semi-structured interviews was performed with orofacial physical therapists (OPTs) and with TMD patients regarding their experience using an e-Health application, Physitrack. The modified telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire and pain intensity score before and after treatment were collected from the patients.ResultsTen OPTs, of which nine actively used Physitrack, described that the e-Health application can help to provide personalised care to patients with TMD, due to the satisfying content, user-friendliness, accessibility, efficiency, and ability to motivate patients. Ten patients, of which nine ended up using Physitrack, felt that shared decision-making was very important. These patients were positive towards the application as it was clear, convenient, and efficient, it helped with reassurance and adherence to the exercises and overall increased self-efficacy. This was mostly built on their experience with exercise videos, as this feature was most used. None of the OPTs or patients used all features of Physitrack. The overall satisfaction of Physitrack based on the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire (TSUQ) was 20.5 ± 4.0 and all patients (100%) showed a clinically relevant reduction of TMD pain (more than 2 points and minimally 30% difference).ConclusionOPTs and patients with TMD shared the idea that exercise videos are of added value on top of usual physical therapy care for TMD complaints, which could be delivered through e-Health.
DOCUMENT
SYNOPSIS: Vascular serious adverse events can occur after examining, manipulating, mobilizing, and prescribing exercise for the cervical spine. Patients presenting with neck pain and headache who develop a vascular serious adverse event during or after treatment may have vascular flow limitations that go unrecognized and are aggravated by treatment. Patients with neck pain and headache-the first nonischemic symptoms of arterial dissection-frequently access physical therapists as first-point providers, not all of whom have specialist training in orthopaedic manual physical therapy. All physical therapists, irrespective of their training, who are helping patients manage neck pain, headache, and/or facial symptoms must feel confident to identify potential vascular flow limitations of the neck prior to providing treatment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(9):418-421. Epub 10 May 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10408.
DOCUMENT
Background: Physical therapy is regarded an effective treatment for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Patients with TMD often report concomitant headache. There is, however, no overview of the effect of physical therapy for TMD on concomitant headache complaints. Objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the literature on the effectiveness of physical therapy on concomitant headache pain intensity in patients with TMD. Data sources: PubMed, Cochrane and PEDro were searched. Study eligibility criteria: Randomized or controlled clinical trials studying physical therapy interventions were included. Participants: Patients with TMD and headache. Appraisal: The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Synthesis methods: Individual and pooled between-group effect sizes were calculated according to the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: and manual therapy on both orofacial region and cervical spine. There is a very low level of certainty that TMD-treatment is effective on headache pain intensity, downgraded by high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Limitations: The methodological quality of most included articles was poor, and the interventions included were very different. Conclusions: Physical therapy interventions presented small effect on reducing headache pain intensity on subjects with TMD, with low level of certainty. More studies of higher methodological quality are needed so better conclusions could be taken.
DOCUMENT
SYNOPSIS: Neck pain, headache, and/ or orofacial symptoms are potentially the first (nonischemic) symptoms of an underlying vascular pathology or blood flow limitation. If an underlying vascular pathology or blood flow limitation is not recognized by the musculoskeletal rehabilitation clinician, it can subsequently be aggravated by treatment, raising the risk of serious adverse events. We argue that clinicians can make an important, and potentially lifesaving, difference by providing specific information and advice. This is especially the case in patients with an intermediate level of concern, for example, in patients who only show a few concerning features regarding a possible underlying serious condition and for whom an initial vasculogenic hypothesis was rejected during the clinical reasoning process. We present background information to help the reader understand the context of the problem and suggestions for how clinicians can provide appropriate information and advice to patients who present with neck pain, headache, and/or orofacial symptoms.
DOCUMENT
Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was threefold: 1. to identify existing definitions of oral frailty and similar terms in gerodontology literature; 2. to assess the oral frailty definitions and analyze whether these are well formulated on a conceptual level; and 3. in the absence of existing definitions meeting the criteria for good conceptual definitions, a new conceptual definition of oral frailty will be presented. Methods: A search was performed in electronic databases and internet search engines. Studies explaining or defining oral frailty or similar terms were of interest. A software-aided procedure was performed to screen titles and abstracts and identify definitions of oral frailty and similar terms. We used a guide to assess the quality of the oral frailty definitions on methodological, linguistic, and content-related criteria. Results: Of the 1,528 screened articles, 47 full-texts were reviewed. Thirteen of these contained seven definitions of oral frailty and ten definitions of similar terms. We found that all definitions of oral frailty contain the same or equivalent characteristics used to define the concepts of ’oral health’, ’deterioration of oral function’, and ’oral hypofunction’. Between the seven definitions, oral frailty is described with a different number and combination of characteristics, resulting in a lack of conceptual consistency. None of the definitions of oral frailty met all criteria. Conclusion: According to our analysis, the current definitions of oral frailty cannot be considered ’good’ conceptual definitions. Therefore, we proposed a new conceptual definition: Oral frailty is the age-related functional decline of orofacial structures.
DOCUMENT
Background: Treatment of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) currently consists of a combination of noninvasive therapies and may be supported by e-Health. It is, however, unclear if physical therapists and patients are positive towards the use of e-Health. Purpose: To assess the needs, facilitators and barriers of the use of an e-Health application from the perspective of both orofacial physical therapists and patients with TMD. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was performed. Eleven physical therapists and nine patients with TMD were interviewed using a topic guide. Thematic analysis was applied, and findings were ordered according to four themes: acceptance of e-Health, expected utility, usability and convenience. Results: Physical therapists identified the need for e-Health as a supporting application to send questionnaires, animated exercises and evaluation tools. Key facilitators for both physical therapists and patients for implementing e-Health included the increase in self-efficacy, support of data collection and personalization of the application. Key barriers are the increase of screen time, the loss of personal contact, not up-to-date information and poor design of the application. Conclusions: Physical therapists and patients with TMD are positive towards the use of e-Health, in a blended form with the usual rehabilitation care process for TMD complaints.Implications for rehabilitation The rehabilitation process of temporomandibular complaints may be supported by the use of e-Health applications. Physical therapists and patients with temporomandibular disorders are positive towards the use of e-Health as an addition to the usual care. Especially during the treatment process, there is a need for clear animated videos and reminders for the patients.
DOCUMENT
Background: In recent years, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions have increasingly been studied and show potential. Despite the potential of digital health services, their use in primary care is lagging. A thorough implementation is needed, including the development of implementation strategies that potentially improve the use of digital health services in primary care. The first step in designing implementation strategies that fit the local context is to gain insight into determinants that influence implementation for patients and health care professionals. Until now, no systematic overview has existed of barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Objective: This systematic literature review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital health services for people with musculoskeletal conditions in the primary health care setting. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for eligible qualitative and mixed methods studies up to March 2024. Methodological quality of the qualitative component of the included studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A framework synthesis of barriers and facilitators to implementation was conducted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). All identified CFIR constructs were given a reliability rating (high, medium, or low) to assess the consistency of reporting across each construct. Results: Overall, 35 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Methodological quality was high in 34 studies and medium in 1 study. Barriers (–) of and facilitators (+) to implementation were identified in all 5 CFIR domains: “digital health characteristics” (ie, commercial neutral [+], privacy and safety [–], specificity [+], and good usability [+]), “outer setting” (ie, acceptance by stakeholders [+], lack of health care guidelines [–], and external financial incentives [–]), “inner setting” (ie, change of treatment routines [+ and –], information incongruence (–), and support from colleagues [+]), “characteristics of the healthcare professionals” (ie, health care professionals’ acceptance [+ and –] and job satisfaction [+ and –]), and the “implementation process” (involvement [+] and justification and delegation [–]). All identified constructs and subconstructs of the CFIR had a high reliability rating. Some identified determinants that influence implementation may be facilitators in certain cases, whereas in others, they may be barriers. Conclusions: Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 5 CFIR domains, suggesting that the implementation process can be complex and requires implementation strategies across all CFIR domains. Stakeholders, including digital health intervention developers, health care professionals, health care organizations, health policy makers, health care funders, and researchers, can consider the identified barriers and facilitators to design tailored implementation strategies after prioritization has been carried out in their local context
DOCUMENT
