This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

mHealth for Rehabilitation (262) Use and User Demographics of mHealth (335) Telehealth and Telemonitoring (1666) Internet for Rehabilitation (74) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (3287) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1393)

Published on in Vol 11 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/44316, first published .
Engagement and Utilization of a Complete Remote Digital Care Program for Musculoskeletal Pain Management in Urban and Rural Areas Across the United States: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Engagement and Utilization of a Complete Remote Digital Care Program for Musculoskeletal Pain Management in Urban and Rural Areas Across the United States: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Engagement and Utilization of a Complete Remote Digital Care Program for Musculoskeletal Pain Management in Urban and Rural Areas Across the United States: Longitudinal Cohort Study

Authors of this article:

Justin Scheer1 Author Orcid Image ;   Anabela C Areias2 Author Orcid Image ;   Maria Molinos2 Author Orcid Image ;   Dora Janela2 Author Orcid Image ;   Robert Moulder3 Author Orcid Image ;   Jorge Lains4, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Virgílio Bento2 Author Orcid Image ;   Vijay Yanamadala2, 6, 7 Author Orcid Image ;   Fernando Dias Correia2, 8 Author Orcid Image ;   Fabíola Costa2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (9) Tweetations (5) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States

    2Sword Health Inc, Draper, UT, United States

    3Institute for Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States

    4Rovisco Pais Medical and Rehabilitation Centre, Coimbra, Portugal

    5Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra University, Coimbra, Portugal

    6Department of Neurosurgery, Hartford Healthcare Medical Group, Westport, CT, United States

    7Department of Surgery, Frank H Netter School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, United States

    8Neurology Department, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Corresponding Author:

    Fabíola Costa, PhD

    Sword Health Inc

    13937 Sprague Lane

    Draper, UT, 84020

    United States

    Phone: 1 1 385 308 8034

    Fax:1 1 801 206 3433

    Email: f.costa@swordhealth.com


    Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are the number one cause of disability worldwide. Digital care programs (DCPs) for MSK pain management have arisen as alternative care delivery models to circumvent challenges in accessibility of conventional therapy. Despite the potential of DCPs to reduce inequities in accessing care, the outcomes of such interventions in rural and urban populations have yet to be studied.

    Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of urban or rural residency on engagement and clinical outcomes after a multimodal DCP for MSK pain.

    Methods: This study consists of an ad hoc analysis of a decentralized single-arm investigation into engagement and clinical-related outcomes after a multimodal DCP in patients with MSK conditions. Patients were coded according to their zip codes to a specific rural-urban commuting area code and grouped into rural and urban cohorts. Changes in their engagement and clinical outcomes from baseline to program end were assessed. Latent growth curve analysis was performed to estimate change trajectories adjusting for the following covariates: age, gender, BMI, employment status, and pain acuity. Outcomes included engagement, self-reported pain, and the results of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item, Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scales. A minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 30% was considered for pain.

    Results: Patients with urban and rural residency across the United States participated in the program (n=9992). A 73.8% (7378/9992) completion rate was observed. Both groups reported high satisfaction scores and similar engagement with exercise sessions, with rural residents showing higher engagement with educational content (P<.001) and higher program completion rates (P=.02). All groups showed a significant improvement in all clinical outcomes, including pain, mental health, and work productivity, without statistically significant intergroup differences. The percentage of patients meeting the MCID was similar in both groups (urban: 67.1%, rural: 68.3%; P=.30).

    Conclusions: This study advocates for the utility of a DCP in improving access to MSK care in urban and rural areas alike, showcasing its potential to promote health equity. High engagement, satisfaction, and completion rates were noted in both groups, as well as significant improvements in clinical outcomes.

    Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04092946; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04092946

    JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2023;11:e44316

    doi:10.2196/44316

    Keywords

    physical therapy; physiotherapy; remote care; telerehabilitation; digital therapy; eHealth; telehealth; telemedicine; musculoskeletal; musculoskeletal conditions; urban; rural; pain; health inequity; digital care; pain management; clinical outcome; health equity; engagement 


    Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are highly prevalent worldwide, resulting in significant disability and suffering [1], and were associated with up to US $380.9 billion of total medical expenditures in 2016 in the United States alone [2]. Exercise-based physical therapy is the mainstay treatment for such conditions [1,3-6]. Recently, telerehabilitation and digital physical therapy have emerged as alternative care delivery systems for a wide range of MSK conditions [7-10]. These alternative care delivery systems have shown to be effective and feasible compared to traditional physical therapy [11-18] while increasing access and affordability to patients and easing the burdens of conventional programs [19]. Accessibility is increased by reducing travel limitations and time barriers while eliminating any geographic restrictions. Additionally, digital therapy can increase compliance by allowing patients to undergo treatment at their convenience and at their own pace, increasing patient empowerment and self-management [8,10,20].

    Despite the many benefits of telehealth, inequities in health other than underlying health status still exist based on age, geography, respective availability of health care facilities, and socioeconomic factors [21-27]. In fact, compared to those in urban areas, patients from rural areas tend to be older, are more likely to be obese, have higher rates of disability, have more chronic health conditions, and have higher fall rates [24,28]. Rural areas are known to have higher proportions of uninsured and underinsured individuals and higher costs of health care services when compared to urban areas [29]. Overall, 65% of rural US counties are designated as health professional shortage areas [30], and rural areas have lower patient-to-primary care physician ratios [31]. Patients in rural areas of the United States have fewer opportunities for in-person physical activity programs due to limited access to indoor facilities and limited transportation when compared to urban patients [32]. These inequities are further compounded by lower educational levels, higher rates of poverty, and lower rates of internet access in rural areas [24,33]. Also, individuals with limited or no digital literacy or with limited access to digital technology may not have the means to pursue and maintain a telehealth intervention [23]. It is therefore crucial to identify strategies for improved access and quality of physical therapy in these historically disinvested areas.

    To our knowledge, no study has been conducted on the impact of urban or rural location on engagement and clinical outcomes following a telerehabilitation program for MSK conditions. We have previously reported a multimodal digital care program (DCP) combining exercise-based physical therapy with psychoeducational components, which provided a comprehensive approach to pain management. This program encourages patients to develop strategies and self-management skills to manage their pain and has been validated in several acute and chronic MSK conditions [15-17,34-36]. Additionally, the impact of race and ethnicity [37], as well as baseline mental health [38] and fear-avoidance beliefs [39], on final clinical outcomes have also been explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of geographical location on engagement and clinical outcomes after a multimodal DCP, with the hypothesis being that patients from both rural and urban areas would have similar engagement and significant improvement in outcomes after program completion.


    Study Design

    This study is an ad hoc analysis of a decentralized, single-arm investigation into clinical and engagement-related outcomes following a multimodal DCP in patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain conditions. The DCP was administered at the patients’ homes and delivered between March 1, 2021, and March 10, 2022.

    Ethics Approval

    This study is part of a trial that was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04092946) on September 17, 2019, and approved by the New England Institutional Review Board (120190313) on June 18, 2020.

    Population

    The study population included adults (≥18 years of age) who were beneficiaries of employer health plans from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Employees and their dependents who reported either acute or chronic MSK pain in the spine, upper limbs, or lower limbs were eligible and were invited to apply to the DCP of Sword Health (located in Draper, Utah) through a dedicated website. Throughout enrollment, participants were asked to provide demographic data, including zip codes and baseline clinical information (eg, initial pain levels). Participants were informed about the study and invited to provide consent. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a health condition (eg, cardiac or respiratory) not allowing a participant to engage in at least 20 minutes of light to moderate exercise, (2) being under treatment for active cancer, and (3) rapid loss of strength or numbness in the arms or legs or change in bowel or urinary function in the previous 2 weeks.

    Intervention

    The DCP has been described previously [15-17,34-36]. In brief, this multimodal program consisted of 4-, 8-, or 12-week telerehabilitation interventions comprising exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This program digitally interfaced between the patient and an assigned physical therapist (PT), who monitored the patient for the study duration. Participants who lacked internet access at home were given a Wi-Fi hotspot. A US Food and Drug Administration–listed class II medical device that consisted of inertial motion trackers, a mobile app in a dedicated tablet, and a cloud-based portal was made available to all patients. Briefly, the personalized exercises were displayed on the tablet, with trackers allowing real-time video and audio biofeedback on performance. At session end, the data related to the exercise sessions, such as compliance, presence or absence of movement errors, and level of pain and fatigue during the exercise, were registered and stored in a cloud-based portal. This portal enabled remote and asynchronous monitoring by the assigned PT, who revised the prescribed exercises if needed. Patients were recommended a frequency of 3 exercise sessions per week. The education and CBT components of the program were developed by a multidisciplinary team following current clinical guidelines and state-of-the-art research [40-44]. The education component delved into topics focused on anatomy, physiology, symptoms, evidence-based treatments, fear avoidance, and active coping skills (including managing feelings of anxiety and depression). The CBT program was based on third-generation techniques—mindfulness, acceptance, and commitment therapy; empathy-focused therapy; fear-avoidance behavior; and constructive coping. The education and CBT materials were delivered to the patients through written articles, audio content, and interactive modules. Bidirectional communication with the assigned PT was ensured through built-in secure chat within a smartphone app and through video calls. Participants who did not perform any exercise session for 28 consecutive days were considered dropouts.

    Demographic Data

    Demographic data included age, BMI, patient gender, educational level, and employment status. The gender category included “man,” “woman,” “nonbinary,” “other,” and “prefer not to specify.” The employment status categories were defined as the following: full-time employed, part-time employed, or not employed. The educational levels were (1) high school or less (including technical or vocational training), (2) some college, including a bachelor’s degree, community college, or an associate degree, (3) some graduate school, including a master’s or doctoral degree, and (4) “not available” or “prefer not to answer.”

    Patients were coded according to their zip codes to a specific rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) code [45]. RUCA codes characterize all census areas regarding their rural and urban status and relationships. This classification system uses the standard Bureau of Census urbanized area and urban cluster definitions in combination with work-commuting information [46,47]. Rural areas have been defined as having an urban core of 50,000 people or less [24]. Therefore, using primary RUCA codes, we defined urban areas by scores from 1 to 3, and rural areas by aggregating codes 4 to 10 (Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S1 [47]).

    Outcomes

    Outcomes were collected at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and mean changes were calculated between baseline and program end. Engagement and clinical outcomes are described in Table 1.

    Table 1. Engagement and clinical outcomes in this study.
    OutcomeDescription
    EngagementMeasured through the following:
    • Completion of the program (considered as the retention rate)
      • ‎
    • Number of completed exercise sessions over the 12-week digital care program
      • ‎
    • Weekly session frequency
      • ‎
    • Time spent performing exercise sessions
      • ‎
    • Articles read
      • ‎
    • Interactions with the physical therapist
      • ‎
    • Satisfaction, assessed through the question “On a scale from 0 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend this intervention to a friend or neighbor?”
      • ‎
    Numerical Pain Rating Scale [48,49]Assessed through the question “Please rate your average pain over the last 7 days, from 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst pain imaginable)”; the number of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference of 30% between baseline and treatment end was also assessed
    Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (range 0-21) [50]Used to assess anxiety; higher scores are associated with worse outcomes
    Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale (range 0-27) [51]Used to assess depression; higher scores are associated with worse outcomes
    WPAIa for general health questionnaire (version 2.0) [52]Evaluated in employed participants to assess overall work impairment (WPAI overall: total presenteeism and absenteeism from work), presenteeism (WPAI work), absenteeism (WPAI time), and non–work-related activity impairment (WPAI activity); higher scores represent higher impairment.

    aWPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

    Statistical Analysis

    Analyses of baseline characteristics (demographics and clinical data), as well as engagement metrics, were performed using a 2-tailed, 2-sample t test, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc test, a chi-square test, or a 2-proportion z test. Patients who completed the program were defined as “completers” and those that did not were defined as “noncompleters.”

    Latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) was used to estimate trajectories of each outcome over time [35,53]. The LGCA has been recognized as one of the most powerful methods to analyze longitudinal data, since it provides a measure of fitness and addresses missing data through full information maximum likelihood (FIML) [54-57]. FIML uses all available data at each time point from all participants to calculate maximum likelihood estimates, outperforming multiple imputation by chained equations or listwise deletion [58,59]. In addition, the LGCA uses a structural equation model to define trajectories through intercept, slope, and curvature for each variable, allowing analysis of the recovery pace and leveling of the effect for each outcome. In order to account for unbalanced group sizes, a multiple-group LGCA was conducted. This allows for creating separate models for rural and urban groups while simultaneously performing intergroup comparisons (eg, mean change). A conditional analysis was conducted to assess the influence of age, gender, BMI, employment status, and education level and was fitted as a random effect. Additionally, analysis of subpopulations was performed by focusing on participants who met the following criteria at baseline: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9) scores equal or greater than 5 points [50,51] and a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; comprising overall, work, time, and activity) score greater than 0 points. A robust sandwich estimator was used in all models for standard errors.

    All statistical analyses were conducted using commercially available software (SPSS version 22; IBM Corp), and the level of significance was set at P<.05 for all tests. The LGCA was coded using R (version 4.2.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing).


    Participant Inclusion

    A total of 14,754 participants were screened for eligibility (Figure 1). Of these, 2151 were excluded, for a total of 12,603 (85.4%) eligible patients, of whom 2611 were excluded due to unavailable RUCA data or not starting the program, resulting in a total of 9992 patients at program start. A total of 7378 of 9992 (73.8%) patients completed the program. The study flow diagram is presented in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Study flow chart showing the number of participants who were excluded, included, and dropped out. RUCA: rural-urban commuting area.

    Baseline Characteristics

    Patients’ baseline demographics grouped by urban and rural areas are presented in Table 2, while baseline characteristics stratified by completers and noncompleters can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S2.

    Table 2. Baseline characteristics for urban and rural groups following an intention-to-treat analysis. Filtered cases correspond to participants who reported relevant impairment at baseline (>0 or ≥5 points). Statistically significant P values are italicized.

    		Total (n=9992)Urban (n=8809)Rural (n=1183)P value
    Age (years), mean (SD)48.55 (12.45)48.11 (12.37)51.85 (12.57)<.001
    Age categories (years), n (%)<.001

    		<25127 (1.3)114 (1.3)13 (1.1)

    		25-402753 (27.6)2520 (28.6)233 (19.7)

    		40-605279 (52.8)4649 (52.8)630 (53.3)

    		>601833 (18.3)1526 (17.3)307 (26)
    BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)29.18 (6.74)28.96 (6.60)30.83 (7.48)<.001
    BMI categories (kg/m2), n (%)<.001

    		Underweight (<18.5)90 (0.9)84 (1)6 (0.5)

    		Normal (18.5-25)2798 (28)2548 (28.9)250 (21.1)

    		Overweight (25-30)3373 (33.8)3011 (34.2)362 (30.6)

    		Obese (30-40)2957 (29.6)2525 (28.7)432 (36.5)

    		Obese grade III (>40)743 (7.4)614 (7)129 (10.9)
    Gender, n (%).12

    		Woman5502 (55.1)4818 (54.7)684 (57.8)

    		Man4457 (44.6)3963 (45)494 (41.8)

    		Nonbinary24 (0.2)19 (0.2)5 (0.4)

    		Other3 (0)3 (0)0 (0)

    		Prefer not to specify6 (0.1)6 (0.1)0 (0)
    Employment status, n (%)<.001

    		Employed full-time6271 (62.8)5616 (63.8)655 (55.4)

    		Employed part-time2348 (23.5)2076 (23.6)272 (23)

    		Not employed1067 (10.7)853 (9.7)214 (18.1)
    Education level, n (%).001

    		High school or less866 (8.7)700 (7.9)166 (14)

    		Some college, including bachelor’s or associate degree4543 (45.5)4031 (45.8)512 (43.3)

    		Some graduate school, including master’s or doctoral degree2082 (20.8)1876 (21.3)206 (17.4)

    		Not available or prefer not to answer2501 (25)2202 (25)299 (25.3)
    Acuity, n (%)a<.001

    		Acute2147 (21.5)1952 (22.2)195 (16.5)

    		Chronic7845 (78.5)6857 (77.8)988 (83.5)
    Anatomical pain region, n (%).003

    		Ankle422 (4.2)380 (4.3)42 (3.6)

    		Elbow286 (2.9)259 (2.9)27 (2.3)

    		Hip900 (9)786 (8.9)114 (9.6)

    		Knee1438 (14.4)1292 (14.7)146 (12.3)

    		Low back3976 (39.8)3441 (39.1)535 (45.2)

    		Neck936 (9.4)834 (9.5)102 (8.6)

    		Shoulder1632 (16.3)1461 (16.6)171 (14.5)

    		Wrist or hand402 (4)356 (4)46 (3.9)
    Clinical outcomes (score)

    		Pain, mean (SD)4.83 (1.99)4.83 (1.99)4.85 (1.98).72

    		GAD-7b ≥5, n (%)2751 (27.5)2430 (27.6)321 (27.1).74

    		GAD-7 ≥5, mean (SD)8.89 (4.08)8.89 (4.07)8.89 (4.19).99

    		GAD-7, mean (SD)3.03 (4.35)3.04 (4.35)2.98 (4.37).69

    		PHQ-9c ≥5, n (%)2071 (20.7)1790 (20.3)281 (23.8).006

    		PHQ-9 ≥5, mean (SD)9.21 (4.30)9.20 (4.29)9.31 (4.41).69

    		PHQ-9, mean (SD)2.37 (4.15)2.33 (4.11)2.7 (4.41).004

    		WPAId overall >0, mean (SD)29.89 (20.11)29.9 (20.11)29.80 (20.16).91

    		WPAI overall, mean (SD)17.32 (21.26)17.23 (21.25)17.9 (21.39).34

    		WPAI work >0, mean (SD)28.63 (18.80)28.62 (18.77)28.71 (19.05).91

    		WPAI work, mean (SD)16.27 (20.05)16.16 (20.0)17.04 (20.35).21

    		WPAI time >0, mean (SD)18.08 (18.07)18.45 (18.45)15.38 (14.94).11

    		WPAI time, mean (SD)1.91 (8.07)1.94 (8.22)1.65 (6.82).31

    		WPAI activity >0, mean (SD)37.37 (22.86)37.33 (22.85)37.70 (22.91).65

    		WPAI activity, mean (SD)29.04 (25.46)28.92 (25.45)29.93 (25.48).20
    Medications, n (%)2364 (23.7)2062 (23.5)302 (25.6).11

    aA total of 1.1% (114/9992) of patients were postsurgical.

    bGAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale.

    cPHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale.

    dWPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale.

    Patients from rural areas were significantly older than patients from urban areas (51.85, SD 12.57 years vs 48.11, SD 12.37 years, respectively; P<.001), had higher BMI (30.83, SD 7.48 kg/m2 vs 28.96, SD 6.60 kg/m2, respectively), had a higher percentage of unemployed individuals (214/1183, 18.1% vs 853/8809, 9.7%, respectively; P<.001), and had a higher percentage of individuals with a lower educational level (166/1183, 14% vs 700/8809, 7.9%, respectively; P<.001). No statistically significant differences in gender distribution were found between groups.

    Patients in rural areas also presented a higher prevalence of chronic pain and low back pain conditions than patients from urban areas (535/1183, 45.2% vs 3441/8809, 39.1%, respectively). In opposition, a higher prevalence of knee-related conditions was observed in patients from urban areas than from rural areas (1292/8809, 14.7% vs 146/1183, 12.3%, respectively; P<.001).

    Overall, similar clinical metrics were observed between patients from rural and urban areas at baseline. The statistically significant differences found were in baseline depression (rural PHQ-9 score 2.70, SD 4.41 vs urban PHQ-9 score 2.33, SD 4.22; P=.004) and percentage of patients with at least mild or moderate depression at baseline (281/1183, 23.8% vs 1790/8809, 20.3%, respectively; P=.006), where more patients from rural areas were depressed.

    When comparing completers with noncompleters, the latter were younger (46.23, SD 12.61 years vs 49.38, SD 12.29 years, respectively; P<.001) and reported higher BMI (30.22, SD 7.36 kg/m2 vs 28.81, SD 6.47 kg/m2, respectively; P<.001). A larger proportion of noncompleters were employed full-time (1732/2614, 66.3% vs 4539/7378, 61.5%, respectively; P<.001) and reported a lower educational level. Noncompleters also reported higher levels of impairment in productivity (WPAI overall, P=.004 and WPAI work, P=.001) and non–work-related activities (WPAI activity, P=.01) at baseline.

    Engagement

    Individuals from rural areas were more likely to complete the program than patients from urban areas (906/1183, 76.6% vs 6472/8809, 73.5%, respectively; P=.02). However, independently of dropout rates, both groups had a similar pattern of engagement. Engagement data stratified by patients from urban and rural areas is presented in Table 3. The 2 groups had similar time dedicated to exercise (P=.48), number of sessions (P=.77), sessions per week (P=.11), and interactions with the PT (P=.14). Average satisfaction scores were similarly high in both groups (rural score 8.6, SD 1.7 and urban score 8.6, SD 1.8; P=.95). The single significant difference in engagement between groups was the number of educational articles consulted, with patients from rural areas reading more articles than patients from urban areas (P<.001; Table 3).

    Table 3. Engagement data across the groups. Statistically significant P values are italicized.
    Engagement outcomesUrban, mean (SD)Rural, mean (SD)P value
    Sessions, n33.88 (32.23)34.18 (30.94).77
    Sessions per week, n2.76 (1.14)2.78 (1.12).11
    Training time, minutes472.02 (485.56)482.54 (485.96).48
    Articles read, n2.72 (5.27)3.44 (6.18)<.001
    Interactions with physical therapist, n11.79 (12.54)12.37 (13.90).14
    Average satisfaction score8.6 (1.7)8.6 (1.8).95

    Clinical Outcomes

    Mean changes in clinical outcomes for both urban and rural groups following an intent-to-treat analysis are presented in Table 4, while the corresponding model estimates and model fitness are presented in Multimedia Appendix 1, Tables S3 and S4, respectively [60,61]. Change trajectories of each outcome are depicted in Figure 2. The impact of the covariates in clinical outcomes is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S5. The same analysis following a per-protocol approach is presented in Multimedia Appendix 1, Tables S6-S8. Similar results were observed from both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Since intention-to-treat analysis offers an overview change of the entire cohort, the following section is focused on these results.

    Table 4. Mean changes between baseline and program end and mean differences between groups for the studied clinical outcomes following an intent-to-treat analysis. Statistically significant P values are italicized.
    ScoresUrbanRuralMean difference

    		Mean change (95% CI)P valueMean change (95% CI)P valueDifference (95% CI)P value
    Pain2.2 (2.2 to 2.3)<.0012.3 (2.1 to 2.5)<.001–0.1 (–0.3 to 0.2).62
    GAD-7a1.26 (1.16 to 1.37)<.0011.16 (0.86 to 1.47)<.0010.1 (–0.22 to 0.43).53
    GAD-7 ≥54.5 (3.7 to 5.4)<.0014.6 (4.3 to 4.9)<.001–0.1 (–1.0 to 0.8).85
    PHQ-9b0.93 (0.82 to 1.03)<.0011.14 (0.84 to 1.45)<.001–0.22 (–0.54 to 0.1).19
    PHQ-9 ≥54.5 (3.39 to 5.53)<.0014.9 (4.5 to 5.2)<.001–0.41 (–1.5 to 0.7).48
    WPAIc overall7.37 (6.65 to 8.09)<.0017.19 (5.28 to 9.11)<.0010.18 (–1.87 to 2.22).87
    WPAI overall >014.6 (11.7 to 17.4)<.00115.6 (14.5 to 16.7)<.001–1.0 (–4.1 to 2.0).50
    WPAI work13.73 (12.99 to 14.47)<.00113.59 (11.67 to 15.51)<.0010.15 (–1.91 to 2.2).89
    WPAI work >014.3 (11.6 to 17.0)<.00115.4 (14.3 to 16.4)<.001–1.1 (–4 to 1.8).46
    WPAI time missed7.14 (6.47 to 7.81)<.0016.82 (5 to 8.63)<.0010.32 (–1.62 to 2.25).75
    WPAI time missed >011.4 (6.9 to 16.0)<.00111.8 (9.9 to 13.7)<.001–0.35 (–5.2 to 4.5).89
    WPAI activity0.66 (0.37 to 0.96)<.0010.42 (–0.34 to 1.19).280.24 (–0.58 to 1.06).57
    WPAI activity >019.4 (18.6 to 20.3)<.00118.4 (16.1 to 20.7)<.0011.06 (–1.4 to 3.5).40

    aGAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale.

    bPHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale.

    cWPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Longitudinal changes across time using intent-to-treat analysis. A: pain level; B and C: mental health (GAD-7-and PHQ-9 scores, respectively) for cases with at least mild or moderate anxiety or depression at baseline; D-F: work productivity (WPAI overall, WPAI work, and WPAI activity scores, respectively) for cases reporting impairment at baseline. The shaded areas are the 95% CI. GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale; WPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale.
    Pain

    Pain levels decreased similarly in both groups from baseline to program end (P=.62), corresponding to a significant mean change of 2.2 points (95% CI 2.2-2.3) in the urban cohort and 2.3 points (95% CI 2.1-2.5) in the rural cohort (Table 4 and Figure 2A). The rate of patients meeting pain MCID at program end was not statistically different between urban and rural cohorts (67.1% versus 68.3%, P=.30).

    Mental Health

    Among those who reported at least mild or moderate anxiety (GAD-7 score ≥5) at baseline, we observed a significant decrease in anxiety in both groups (urban score 4.5, 95% CI 3.7-5.4; P<.001 and rural score 4.6, 95% CI 4.3-4.9; P<.001); this decrease was similar in the groups (P=.85). Likewise, among those reporting at least mild or moderate depression at baseline (ie, PHQ-9 score ≥5), we observed a significant decrease in depression scores in both groups (urban score 4.5, 95% CI 3.39-5.53; P<.001 and rural score 4.9, 95% CI 4.5-5.2; P<.001); this decrease was also similar in the groups (P=.48). In patients from urban areas, chronic MSK conditions were associated with steeper initial recovery of depression, followed by a stronger leveling effect. In contrast, in patients from rural areas, chronic pain was associated with slower improvement that was more sustained over time (Figure 2C, difference in slope between groups –0.07, P=.004; difference in curve between groups 1.06, P<.001; Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S5).

    Productivity

    Productivity improvements were observed in both groups with no differences between them (Figure 2D-F). For WPAI overall, mean changes of 14.6 points (95% CI 11.7-17.4) and 15.6 points (95% CI 14.5-16.7) were reported for urban and rural groups, respectively (P=.50). Presenteeism, measured through WPAI work, improved by 14.3 points (95% CI 11.6-17.0) in the urban group and by 15.4 points (95% CI 14.3-16.4) in the rural group (P=.46). Absenteeism, measured through WPAI time missed, was reduced by 11.4 points (95% CI 6.9-16.0) and 11.8 points (95% CI 9.9-13.7) in the urban and rural groups, respectively. Similarly, impairment in non–work-related activities (ie, WPAI activity) had improvements of 19.4 points (95% CI 18.6-20.3) and 18.4 points (95% CI 16.1-20.7) in the urban and rural groups, respectively.

    In urban areas, individuals with higher BMI reported a greater leveling effect on absenteeism improvement than those from rural areas (the difference in curve between groups was 0.14, P=.04; Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S5). In patients from rural areas, the presence of chronic pain was associated with a faster recovery in absenteeism in comparison with that in patients from urban areas (the difference in slope between groups was 0.16, P=.03; Multimedia Appendix 1, Table S5).


    Principal Findings

    The multimodal DCP herein reported was able to reach all US states in both urban and rural locations and had a completion rate of 73.8% (7378/9992), which is similar to previous studies reporting the use of digital interventions for MSK pain management [37,62]. The percentage of participants in urban areas was significantly higher than in rural locations, which was expected given that only approximately 19.6% of the US population is located in rural areas according to the US Census Bureau [63].

    Health inequities between urban and rural populations are prevalent in the United States. [64]. Rural populations have been reported to have demographics associated with a poorer prognosis for MSK pain [65-69]. In accord with this, in this study, patients from rural areas were older [67], had higher BMI [69], had lower educational levels [65], and had a higher prevalence of depression [67]. Some of these factors have previously been associated with lower chances of receiving physical therapy [33]. Lower education (and consequently lower digital literacy) have been associated with lower adherence, for example [21-23].

    Studies have shown that patients in rural areas of the United States may face additional difficulties in recovery due to fewer opportunities for in-person physical activity programs as a consequence of limited access to indoor facilities, limited transportation, and a lower overall health status when compared to urban patients [24,32]. Additionally, rural residents are less likely to report having home broadband than those living in urban or suburban areas [70], which seriously impacts their access to digital health care tools and electronic communication with health providers [71].

    In this study, engagement was similar between both rural and urban areas (eg, the number of sessions and interactions with a PT), and completion rates were higher in the rural cohort. The reasons behind these observations may be multifactorial, but one can speculate that the lack of access to alternative health care resources, as well as the provision of a Wi-Fi hotspot to those without internet, might have prompted patients from rural areas to not only engage with the exercise sessions but also to achieve higher completion rates [70,71]. Also, despite lower educational levels, patients from rural areas engaged more with curated health educational articles advocating for telerehabilitation programs as enablers of health literacy.

    Despite the worse clinical outcomes reported at baseline by those in rural communities, in line with what has been described before [32,66-69], similar improvements in pain, mental health, and productivity impairment were observed in both groups, again reinforcing the notion that higher MSK pain burden in rural areas may be associated with lack of access to care. Pain improvements were above a 2-point change independently of the studied group, with 67.1% to 68.3% of participants meeting the MCID for pain [48,49]. The percentages of patients meeting the MCID were within the ranges previously reported for digital interventions (49%-75.6%) [72-74] and in-person physical therapy [75].

    The prevalence of depression and anxiety has been reported to be higher in residents of rural areas compared to urban areas [76], with those from rural areas facing a shortage of mental health services [77]. Since mental health and MSK pain are tightly associated [38,78], the scarcity of psychological support can seriously impact the recovery rates of rural populations. This study confirms a higher depression burden in patients from rural areas but found similar improvement in mental health scores in both rural and urban patients, reinforcing the notion that lack of access to mental health resources may be the main driver for the higher burden of disease in rural areas. Additionally, MSK pain has been reported to be a main driver for loss of work productivity [79,80]. The factors weighing on absenteeism recovery were BMI and the presence of chronic pain, both previously reported to negatively impact MSK pain recovery [81,82]. Nevertheless, we did not observe significant differences in improvement in any productivity domains between urban and rural groups; all of these domains showed significant improvement following the DCP.

    Despite the wide reach of telerehabilitation, many areas across the United States are still facing unmet needs. The results observed herein support the need for further research and investment in digital rehabilitation to mitigate inequities in health care access and care delivery optimization.

    Strengths and Limitations

    There are many strengths to this study, namely the novelty of investigating the urban-rural dichotomy within a digital therapy program in a large sample size from a real-world context, including patients from 50 US states and the District of Columbia, which allows for a diverse population and thus better generalizability. Another strength is the DCP itself, which uses a multimodal approach that includes exercises with real-time biofeedback, mental support, regular communication with the PT, and a digital format. All these components favor accessibility and maximize engagement and clinical outcomes, allowing us to study different aspects of the problem, from pain to mental health to productivity.

    The classification of rural and urban areas is a challenging topic considering the multitude of factors that can highly influence the obtained readings. Despite the application of a recognized classification system [45-47], we cannot rule out the existence of other confounding factors with contributions that were not taken into account during this exploratory analysis, including desirability bias. Other limitations include the lack of control groups (to account for nonspecific treatment effects) and the lack of long-term outcome and objective outcome measures (ie, through activity trackers). Nevertheless, this exploratory study may lay a foundation for future work in this field, identifying areas in need of improvement for future telerehabilitation programs. Further prospective controlled studies are warranted to better characterize the effect of rural and urban inequities on digital therapy outcomes.

    Conclusion

    This study provides important insights regarding the impact of a multimodal digital program for MSK pain management in rural and urban settings. The DCP was able to reach all areas across the United States with high completion rates in both settings. Despite the inherent health inequities between patients from rural and urban areas, similarly high satisfaction and engagement, alongside significant improvements in pain, mental health, and productivity, were observed in both groups. This showcases the potential of the DCP to mitigate inequities by improving the accessibility of MSK care independently of geographic location.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors acknowledge the team of physical therapists responsible for managing the participants. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of João Tiago Silva and Guilherme Freches in data validation (both employees of Sword Health). Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content was done by all authors. All authors were involved with the final approval of the manuscript. The study sponsor, Sword Health, was involved in the study design, data collection, and interpretation and writing of the manuscript.

    Data Availability

    The data sets generated during or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

    Authors' Contributions

    All authors made a significant contribution to the work. FC, FDC, and JL were responsible for the study concept and design. MM acquired the data. RM performed the statistical analysis. JS, FC, ACA, DJ, MM, and FC interpreted the data. JS was responsible for drafting the work. VB was responsible for funding.

    Conflicts of Interest

    Sword Health owns the Digital Care Program and as such this program is only available to those covered by a commercial agreement with Sword Health. FC, DJ, AA, MM, FDC, VB, and VY are employees of Sword Health, the sponsor of this study. DJ, FC, FDC, VY, and VB also hold equity in Sword Health. RM is an independent scientific consultant responsible for the statistical analysis. JS and JL are independent scientific and clinical consultants who received adviser honorariums from Sword Health.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Information regarding (1) Rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes, (2) baseline characteristics of completers and non-completers, (3) Latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) model following intent-to-treat analysis with corresponding model fitness and conditional analysis, and (4) 12-week mean changes for the per-protocol analysis and corresponding LGCA model and model fitness.

    DOCX File , 78 KB
    1. El-Tallawy SN, Nalamasu R, Salem GI, LeQuang JAK, Pergolizzi JV, Christo PJ. Management of musculoskeletal pain: an update with emphasis on chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain Ther 2021 Jun;10(1):181-209 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, Chen C, Li Z, Liu A, et al. US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996-2016. JAMA 2020 Mar 03;323(9):863-884 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Blyth FM, Noguchi N. Chronic musculoskeletal pain and its impact on older people. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2017 Apr;31(2):160-168. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. George SZ, Fritz JM, Silfies SP, Schneider MJ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, et al. Interventions for the management of acute and chronic low back pain: revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021 Nov;51(11):CPG1-CPG60. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Gianola S, Bargeri S, Del Castillo G, Corbetta D, Turolla A, Andreano A, et al. Effectiveness of treatments for acute and subacute mechanical non-specific low back pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2022 Jan;56(1):41-50 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J, Kongsted A, Aaboe J, Andersen M, Andersen, et al. National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J 2018 Jan;27(1):60-75. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Grona SL, Bath B, Busch A, Rotter T, Trask C, Harrison E. Use of videoconferencing for physical therapy in people with musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2018 Jun;24(5):341-355. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Lee AC, Davenport TE, Randall K. Telehealth physical therapy in musculoskeletal practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018 Oct;48(10):736-739. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Levy CE, Silverman E, Jia H, Geiss M, Omura D. Effects of physical therapy delivery via home video telerehabilitation on functional and health-related quality of life outcomes. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015;52(3):361-370 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Seron P, Oliveros M, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, et al. effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapy: a rapid overview. Phys Ther 2021 Jun 01;101(6):pzab053 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Horsley S, Schock G, Grona SL, Montieth K, Mowat B, Stasiuk K, et al. Use of real-time videoconferencing to deliver physical therapy services: A scoping review of published and emerging evidence. J Telemed Telecare 2020 Dec;26(10):581-589. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Mecklenburg G, Smittenaar P, Erhart-Hledik JC, Perez DA, Hunter S. Effects of a 12-Week digital care program for chronic knee pain on pain, mobility, and surgery risk: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2018 Apr 25;20(4):e156 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Nelson M, Bourke M, Crossley K, Russell T. Telerehabilitation is non-inferior to usual care following total hip replacement - a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Physiotherapy 2020 Jun;107:19-27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Russell TG, Buttrum P, Wootton R, Jull GA. Internet-based outpatient telerehabilitation for patients following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011 Jan 19;93(2):113-120. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Correia FD, Molinos M, Luís S, Carvalho D, Carvalho C, Costa P, et al. Digitally assisted versus conventional home-based rehabilitation after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2022 Mar 01;101(3):237-249 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Correia FD, Nogueira A, Magalhães I, Guimarães J, Moreira M, Barradas I, et al. Medium-term outcomes of digital versus conventional home-based rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: prospective, parallel-group feasibility study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2019 Feb 28;6(1):e13111 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Correia FD, Nogueira A, Magalhães I, Guimarães J, Moreira M, Barradas I, et al. Home-based rehabilitation with a novel digital biofeedback system versus conventional in-person rehabilitation after total knee replacement: a feasibility study. Sci Rep 2018 Jul 26;8(1):11299 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Fatoye F, Gebrye T, Fatoye C, Mbada CE, Olaoye MI, Odole AC, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation for people with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 Jun 24;8(6):e15375 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Fiani B, Siddiqi I, Lee SC, Dhillon L. Telerehabilitation: development, application, and need for increased usage in the COVID-19 era for patients with spinal pathology. Cureus 2020 Sep 21;12(9):e10563 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Cottrell MA, Russell TG. Telehealth for musculoskeletal physiotherapy. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2020 Aug;48:102193 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Dixit N, Van Sebille Y, Crawford GB, Ginex PK, Ortega PF, Chan RJ. Disparities in telehealth use: How should the supportive care community respond? Support Care Cancer 2022 Feb;30(2):1007-1010 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Lattimore CM, Kane WJ, Fleming MA, Martin AN, Mehaffey JH, Smolkin ME, et al. Disparities in telemedicine utilization among surgical patients during COVID-19. PLoS One 2021;16(10):e0258452 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Qian L, Sy LS, Hong V, Glenn SC, Ryan DS, Morrissette K, et al. Disparities in outpatient and telehealth visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large integrated health care organization: retrospective. J Med Internet Res 2021 Sep 01;23(9):e29959 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Felter CE, Zalewski K, Jermann R, Palmer PL, Baier AE, Falvey JR. Rural health: the dirt road less traveled. Phys Ther 2022 Aug 04:pzac112. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Huber GM, Bitzer G, Corazzi C, Fitzsimmons S, Melissa H, Shelley J, et al. Access to physical therapy in a medically underserved, urban community. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2019;30(2):768-788. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Liu X, Seidel JE, McDonald T, Patel AB, Waters N, Bertazzon S, et al. Rural-urban disparities in realized spatial access to general practitioners, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists among people with osteoarthritis in Alberta, Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 Jun 23;19(13):7706 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Mercier MR, Galivanche AR, Wiggins AJ, Kahan JB, McLaughlin W, Radford ZJ, et al. Patient demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with physical therapy utilization after uncomplicated meniscectomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2022 Jul 01;6(7):e22.00135 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Castle ME, Tak CR. Self-reported vs RUCA rural-urban classification among North Carolina pharmacists. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2021;19(3):2406 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Surbhi S, Tolley EA, Cossman RE, Dashputre AA, Bailey JE. Refining a traditional urban-rural classification approach to better assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in patient-centered outcomes research. MethodsX 2021;8:101299 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Probst JC, Moore CG, Glover SH, Samuels ME. Person and place: the compounding effects of race/ethnicity and rurality on health. Am J Public Health 2004 Oct;94(10):1695-1703. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Hing E, Hsiao C. State variability in supply of office-based primary care providers: United States, 2012. NCHS Data Brief 2014 May(151):1-8 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    32. Pelletier C, Cornish K, Amyot T, Pousette A, Fox G, Snadden D, et al. Physical activity promotion in rural health care settings: A rapid realist review. Prev Med Rep 2022 Oct;29:101905 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Carter SK, Rizzo JA. Use of outpatient physical therapy services by people with musculoskeletal conditions. Phys Ther 2007 May;87(5):497-512. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Correia FD, Molinos M, Neves C, Janela D, Carvalho D, Luis S, et al. Digital rehabilitation for acute ankle sprains: prospective longitudinal cohort study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2021 Sep 30;8(3):e31247 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Costa F, Janela D, Molinos M, Lains J, Francisco GE, Bento V, et al. Telerehabilitation of acute musculoskeletal multi-disorders: prospective, single-arm, interventional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022 Jan 04;23(1):29 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Janela D, Costa F, Molinos M, Moulder RG, Lains J, Francisco GE, et al. Asynchronous and tailored digital rehabilitation of chronic shoulder pain: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. J Pain Res 2022;15:53-66 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Scheer J, Costa F, Molinos M, Areias A, Janela D, Moulder RG, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in outcomes of a 12-week digital rehabilitation program for musculoskeletal pain: prospective longitudinal cohort study. J Med Internet Res 2022 Oct 31;24(10):e41306 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Costa F, Janela D, Molinos M, Moulder R, Bento V, Lains J, et al. Impacts of digital care programs for musculoskeletal conditions on depression and work productivity: longitudinal cohort study. J Med Internet Res 2022 Jul 25;24(7):e38942 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Janela D, Costa F, Molinos M, Moulder RG, Lains J, Scheer JK, et al. Fear avoidance beliefs in upper-extremity musculoskeletal pain conditions: secondary analysis of a prospective clinical study on digital care programs. Pain Med 2022 Oct 06:pnac149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Lin I, Wiles L, Waller R, Goucke R, Nagree Y, Gibberd M, et al. What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2020 Jan;54(2):79-86. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Williams ACDC, Eccleston C, Morley S. Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Nov 14;11(11):CD007407 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2016.   URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59 [accessed 2023-02-10]
    43. Joypaul S, Kelly F, McMillan SS, King MA. Multi-disciplinary interventions for chronic pain involving education: A systematic review. PLoS One 2019;14(10):e0223306 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, McLean RM, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians, Denberg TD, et al. Noninvasive treatments for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2017 Apr 04;166(7):514-530 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Hart LG, Larson EH, Lishner DM. Rural definitions for health policy and research. Am J Public Health 2005 Jul;95(7):1149-1155. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. RUCA Data - Using RUCA Data. RUCA Rural Health Research Center.   URL: https://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-uses.php [accessed 2022-11-01]
    47. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes.   URL: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes.aspx [accessed 2022-11-01]
    48. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Choi Y, Chou R. Validation of a consensus-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold using an objective functional external anchor. Spine J 2013 Aug;13(8):889-893. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Ostelo RWJG, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 Jan 01;33(1):90-94. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-1097. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001 Sep;16(9):606-613 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Ospina MB, Dennett L, Waye A, Jacobs P, Thompson AH. A systematic review of measurement properties of instruments assessing presenteeism. Am J Manag Care 2015 Feb 01;21(2):e171-e185 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    53. Burant CJ. Latent growth curve models: tracking changes over time. Int J Aging Hum Dev 2016 Apr;82(4):336-350. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Mbada CE, Olaoye MI, Dada OO, Ayanniyi O, Johnson OE, Odole AC, et al. Comparative efficacy of clinic-based and telerehabilitation application of Mckenzie therapy in chronic low-back pain. Int J Telerehabil 2019;11(1):41-58 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Enders C, Bandalos D. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equ Modeling 2001 Jul 1;8(3):430-457. [CrossRef]
    56. Newman DA. Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: a simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organ Res Methods 2016 Jun 29;6(3):328-362. [CrossRef]
    57. Olinsky A, Chen S, Harlow L. The comparative efficacy of imputation methods for missing data in structural equation modeling. Eur J Oper Res 2003 Nov;151(1):53-79. [CrossRef]
    58. Pfaffel A, Schober B, Spiel C. A comparison of three approaches to correct for direct and indirect range restrictions: a simulation study. Pract Assess Res Eval 2016;21(6):1-15 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    59. Xiao J, Bulut O. Evaluating the performances of missing data handling methods in ability estimation from sparse data. Educ Psychol Meas 2020 Oct;80(5):932-954 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Iacobucci D. Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. J Consum Psychol 2009 Oct 03;20(1):90-98. [CrossRef]
    61. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2006.
    62. Bailey JF, Agarwal V, Zheng P, Smuck M, Fredericson M, Kennedy DJ, et al. Digital care for chronic musculoskeletal pain: 10,000 participant longitudinal cohort study. J Med Internet Res 2020 May 11;22(5):e18250 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Urban Areas Facts. US Census Bureau.   URL: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html [accessed 2022-11-01]
    64. Caldwell JT, Ford CL, Wallace SP, Wang MC, Takahashi LM. Intersection of living in a rural versus urban area and race/ethnicity in explaining access to health care in the United States. Am J Public Health 2016 Aug;106(8):1463-1469. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Rethorn ZD, Garcia AN, Cook CE, Gottfried ON. Quantifying the collective influence of social determinants of health using conditional and cluster modeling. PLoS One 2020;15(11):e0241868 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Tseli E, Boersma K, Stålnacke BM, Enthoven P, Gerdle B, Äng BO, et al. Prognostic factors for physical functioning after multidisciplinary rehabilitation in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain 2019 Feb;35(2):148-173 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Mallen CD, Peat G, Thomas E, Dunn KM, Croft PR. Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2007 Aug;57(541):655-661 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    68. Green D, Lewis M, Mansell G, Artus M, Dziedzic K, Hay E, et al. Clinical course and prognostic factors across different musculoskeletal pain sites: A secondary analysis of individual patient data from randomised clinical trials. Eur J Pain 2018 Jul;22(6):1057-1070. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Seaman DR. Body mass index and musculoskeletal pain: is there a connection? Chiropr Man Therap 2013 May 20;21(1):15 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Vogels E. Some digital divides persist between rural, urban and suburban America. Pew Research Center. 2021.   URL: https:/​/www.​pewresearch.org/​fact-tank/​2021/​08/​19/​some-digital-divides-persist-between-rural-urban-and-suburban-america/​ [accessed 2023-02-08]
    71. Greenberg AJ, Haney D, Blake KD, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Differences in access to and use of electronic personal health information between rural and urban residents in the United States. J Rural Health 2018 Feb;34 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):s30-s38 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Kent P, Laird R, Haines T. The effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on the clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain-a multicentre, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled, pilot trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2015 May 29;16:131 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Wang G, Yang M, Hong M, Krauss J, Bailey JF. Clinical outcomes one year after a digital musculoskeletal (MSK) program: an observational, longitudinal study with nonparticipant comparison group. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022 Mar 11;23(1):237 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Dahlberg LE, Dell'Isola A, Lohmander LS, Nero H. Improving osteoarthritis care by digital means - Effects of a digital self-management program after 24- or 48-weeks of treatment. PLoS One 2020;15(3):e0229783 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Trulsson Schouenborg A, Rivano Fischer M, Bondesson E, Jöud A. Physiotherapist-led rehabilitation for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: interventions and promising long-term outcomes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021 Oct 28;22(1):910 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Probst JC, Laditka SB, Moore CG, Harun N, Powell MP, Baxley EG. Rural-urban differences in depression prevalence: implications for family medicine. Fam Med 2006 Oct;38(9):653-660 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    77. Jameson JP, Blank MB. Diagnosis and treatment of depression and anxiety in rural and nonrural primary care: national survey results. Psychiatr Serv 2010 Jun;61(6):624-627. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Daré LO, Bruand P, Gérard D, Marin B, Lameyre V, Boumédiène F, et al. Co-morbidities of mental disorders and chronic physical diseases in developing and emerging countries: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2019 Mar 13;19(1):304 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, Lancet Low Back Pain Series Working Group. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet 2018 Jun 09;391(10137):2356-2367 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K, Hanson SW, Chatterji S, Vos T. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2021 Dec 19;396(10267):2006-2017 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Moreira-Silva I, Santos R, Abreu S, Mota J. Associations between body mass index and musculoskeletal pain and related symptoms in different body regions among workers. SAGE Open 2013 Jun 05;3(2):215824401349195 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    82. LoMartire R, Dahlström Ö, Björk M, Vixner L, Frumento P, Constan L, et al. Predictors of sickness absence in a clinical population with chronic pain. J Pain 2021 Oct;22(10):1180-1194 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    ANOVA: analysis of variance
    CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy
    DCP: digital care program
    FIML: full information maximum likelihood
    GAD-7: Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item
    LGCA: latent growth curve analysis
    MCID: minimum clinically important difference
    MSK: musculoskeletal
    PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item
    PT: physical therapist
    RUCA: rural-urban commuting area
    WPAI: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment

    Edited by G Eysenbach, L Buis; submitted 17.11.22; peer-reviewed by R Jamison; comments to author 05.01.23; revised version received 12.01.23; accepted 02.02.23; published 16.03.23

    Copyright

    ©Justin Scheer, Anabela C Areias, Maria Molinos, Dora Janela, Robert Moulder, Jorge Lains, Virgílio Bento, Vijay Yanamadala, Fernando Dias Correia, Fabíola Costa. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (https://mhealth.jmir.org), 16.03.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.