Objective: To develop initial American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines on the use of exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional interventions in conjunction with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as part of an integrative management approach for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: An interprofessional guideline development group constructed clinically relevant Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions. A literature review team then completed a systematic literature review and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the certainty of evidence. An interprofessional Voting Panel (n = 20 participants) that included 3 individuals with RA achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.Results: The Voting Panel achieved consensus on 28 recommendations for the use of integrative interventions in conjunction with DMARDs for the management of RA. Consistent engagement in exercise received a strong recommendation. Of 27 conditional recommendations, 4 pertained to exercise, 13 to rehabilitation, 3 to diet, and 7 to additional integrative interventions. These recommendations are specific to RA management, recognizing that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions.Conclusion: This guideline provides initial ACR recommendations on integrative interventions for the management of RA to accompany DMARD treatments. The broad range of interventions included in these recommendations illustrates the importance of an interprofessional, team‐based approach to RA management. The conditional nature of most recommendations requires clinicians to engage persons with RA in shared decision‐making when applying these recommendations.

Previous reviews have reported virtual reality (VR) to be an effective method to treat pain. This scoping review examines the state of the science for VR and pain both generally and by pain type (acute and chronic) related to types of mechanisms, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs). We searched online databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and CINAHL from 2010 to 2020 and included studies from peer reviewed journals that examined people with pain, (excluding pain-free participants) with a primary outcome measuring pain. We assessed studies for risk of bias using PEDro criteria. We described data through counts and percentages. Significant results were determined through P-values. We found 70 studies representing 4105 people; 46 acute pain studies (65.7%), 22 chronic pain studies (31.4%), and 2 (2.9%) “both.” The most common VR mechanism was distraction (78.6%) then embodiment (17.1%). However, distraction was the mechanism for 97.8% acute pain studies while embodiment was more common for chronic pain (54.5%). Dosage of VR was inconsistently reported and varied considerably. VR treatment groups showed significant improvements in pain, particularly for intensity of pain (72.1%) and quality of pain (75.0%). Few studies examined AEs. Limitations of this review include only examining last 10 years of articles and that many studies were missing data. VR appears to be an effective intervention to address both acute and chronic pain. Research evaluating VR mechanisms, dosage, and AEs is warranted, as is further work in under-served populations (children for chronic pain and older adults) as the current evidence is largely limited to adult populations with pain.