OBJECTIVE: As the literature for the treatment of functional (psychogenic) movement disorders (FMD) is sparse, we assessed clinical outcomes in patients with FMD who underwent treatment with psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDP). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the data of patients with FMD who were referred for PDP from 2008−2014 at Emory University Medical Center was performed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included, mean age at presentation was 50 years (SD 13.9) and majority were female (27/30). Most common movement disorder was involuntary shaking/jerky movements (50%) and tremor (43%). Mean duration of symptoms was 3.2 years and mean number of PDP visits was 4.9. PDP lead to good outcomes in 10, modest in 8, and poor in 9. Three patients lost to follow up. Mean duration of symptoms between two groups (good vs. poor) was not statistically significant (p = 0.11), mean number of PDP visits showed a trend towards significance (p = 0.053). In all cases of good outcomes precipitants of the movement disorder were identified and a majority (60%) was receptive of the diagnosis and had good insight. CONCLUSION: PDP lead to improvement in 60% of the patients which is encouraging as the treatment is challenging. This study supports heterogeneous causes of FMD including varied roles of past/recent events and demonstrates importance of psychological approaches such as PDP. Treatment with PDP should be considered in some patients with FMD but predicting who will respond remains a challenge. Further long term prospective studies with large sample size and placebo control are needed.
Academic Medical Centers ; Conversion Disorder ; Diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Lost to Follow-Up ; Movement Disorders* ; Prospective Studies ; Psychotherapy, Psychodynamic* ; Retrospective Studies ; Sample Size ; Tremor

Objective: Telemedicine has rapidly gained momentum in movement disorder neurology during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to preserve clinical care while mitigating the risks of in-person visits. We present data from the rapid implementation of virtual visits in a large, academic, movement disorder practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We describe the strategic shift to virtual visits and retrospectively examine elements that impacted the ability to switch to telemedicine visits using historical prepandemic in-person data as a comparator, including demographics, distance driven, and diagnosis distribution, with an additional focus on patients with deep brain stimulators. Results: A total of 686 telemedicine visits were performed over a five-week period (60% of those previously scheduled for in-office visits). The average age of participants was 65 years, 45% were female, and 73% were Caucasian. Men were more likely to make the transition (p = 0.02). Telemedicine patients lived farther from the clinic than those seen in person (66.47 km vs. 42.16 km, p < 0.001), age was not associated with making the switch, and patient satisfaction did not change. There was a significant shift in the distribution of movement disorder diagnoses seen by telemedicine compared to prepandemic in-person visits (p < 0.001). Patients with deep brain stimulators were more likely to use telemedicine (11.5% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). Conclusion Telemedicine is feasible, viable and relevant in the care of movement disorder patients, although health care disparities appear evident for women and minorities. Patients with deep brain stimulators preferred telemedicine in our study. Further study is warranted to explore these findings.

Objective: Telemedicine has rapidly gained momentum in movement disorder neurology during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to preserve clinical care while mitigating the risks of in-person visits. We present data from the rapid implementation of virtual visits in a large, academic, movement disorder practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We describe the strategic shift to virtual visits and retrospectively examine elements that impacted the ability to switch to telemedicine visits using historical prepandemic in-person data as a comparator, including demographics, distance driven, and diagnosis distribution, with an additional focus on patients with deep brain stimulators. Results: A total of 686 telemedicine visits were performed over a five-week period (60% of those previously scheduled for in-office visits). The average age of participants was 65 years, 45% were female, and 73% were Caucasian. Men were more likely to make the transition (p = 0.02). Telemedicine patients lived farther from the clinic than those seen in person (66.47 km vs. 42.16 km, p < 0.001), age was not associated with making the switch, and patient satisfaction did not change. There was a significant shift in the distribution of movement disorder diagnoses seen by telemedicine compared to prepandemic in-person visits (p < 0.001). Patients with deep brain stimulators were more likely to use telemedicine (11.5% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). Conclusion Telemedicine is feasible, viable and relevant in the care of movement disorder patients, although health care disparities appear evident for women and minorities. Patients with deep brain stimulators preferred telemedicine in our study. Further study is warranted to explore these findings.