RESUMEN
Background: Virtual complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapy availability increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but little is known about effectiveness. We examined the perceived effectiveness of in-person and virtual CIH therapies for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who recently started using CIH therapies. Methods: The sample included Veterans (n = 1,091) with chronic musculoskeletal pain, identified in the Veterans Health Administration's electronic health record based on initiation of CIH therapy use, who responded to VA's Patient Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Experience Survey during March, 2021, to August, 2022. Using multivariable models with self-guided virtual (apps or videos) delivery as the reference, we compared patient-reported outcomes (pain, mental health, fatigue, and general well-being) associated with any yoga, Tai Chi/Qigong, or meditation use delivered: (1) only in-person, (2) only virtually with a live provider, (3) only virtually self-guided, (4) virtually self-guided + virtually provider-guided, or (5) hybrid in-person + virtual (self-or provider-guided). Results: Under 10% of Veterans reported only in-person use; 54% used only virtual formats and 36% a hybrid of in-person and virtual. Forty-one percent reported improvement in general well-being, 40.6% in mental health, 37.1% in pain, and 22.7% in fatigue. Compared with Veterans using only self-guided virtual CIH therapies, Veterans using only in-person therapies were more likely to report improvement in fatigue (odds ratio [OR]: 1.8, confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-3.1) and general well-being (OR: 1.7, CI: 1.0-2.6). Conclusions: Many patients perceived health improvements from CIH therapies, with in-person users reporting more improvement in fatigue and well-being than those using virtual sessions and similar improvements in pain and mental health for in-person and hybrid users.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the mentor-mentee relationship in veterans with type 2 diabetes and gain insight into successful pairings. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted as part of a peer mentoring randomized controlled trial to understand participants' experiences, their relationship with their partner, and how the intervention affected self-care behaviors. Purposive sampling was done to ensure adequate representation of mentees who made large strides in reaching their glycemic targets, those who made marginal improvements toward their glycemic goals, and those who got worse. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for salient themes. RESULTS: The intervention was well received, with most participants describing it as valuable. Participants perceived the intervention to have a number of benefits, including accessible support, enhanced self-confidence, increased accountability, better self-efficacy, improved glycemic management, and a fulfilled sense of altruism. Participants did encounter barriers, including logistical, interpersonal, and individual obstacles. The more successful mentees tended to be more effusive in their description of their mentors, endorsed a stronger sense of connection to their mentor, described a more structured interaction with their mentor, and tended to be more complimentary of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Large peer support programs are appealing and well received. These programs can be optimized by selecting naturally inclined mentors, providing additional training to introduce more structure into mentorship interactions, and targeting mentees who are not struggling with overwhelming comorbidities.