Exploration of rehabilitation psychology in multidisciplinary care of upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries: patient and provider perspectives.

This was a pilot study at one clinic with 50 patients, so it cannot show that rehabilitation psychology caused better outcomes or that the findings apply elsewhere. There was no control group, so the study cannot show that the psychology visit caused the change in ratings. The patient outcome was perceived usefulness on a brief, unvalidated two-question survey, not pain, mood, function, quality of life, or recovery. The study used many statistical tests, and the authors said significance should be interpreted cautiously because false-positive findings are more likely. Provider data were available for 44 of 50 patients, so provider findings do not cover the whole sample. Patients who declined to participate may have had less favourable views of psychological services. The provider survey asked about the clinic broadly but was interpreted for each patient, which may not capture patient-specific details. Subgroup sample sizes were too small to interpret for injury mechanism and injury cause.

Do not conclude that a rehabilitation psychology session improves recovery after upper extremity nerve injury. The study measured perceived usefulness after a visit, had no control group, used an unvalidated survey, and cannot separate the effect of the psychology visit from the surgical evaluation and rehabilitation care in the same clinic visit.