Search

Background: Back pain is very common and a leading cause of disability worldwide. Due to health care system inequalities, Indigenous communities have a disproportionately higher prevalence of injury and acute and chronic diseases compared to the general Canadian population. Indigenous communities, particularly in northern Canada, have limited access to evidence-based spine care. Strategies established in collaboration with Indigenous peoples are needed to address unmet healthcare needs, including spine care (chiropractic and movement program) services. This study aimed to understand the views and perspectives of Cross Lake community leaders and clinicians working at Cross Lake Nursing Station (CLNS) in northern Manitoba regarding the implementation of the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) model of spine care (MoC) and related implementation strategies. Method: A qualitative exploratory design using an interpretivist paradigm was used. Twenty community partners were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) adapted to capture pertinent information. Data were analyzed deductively and inductively, and the interpretation of findings were explored in consultation with community members and partners. Results: Community leaders (n = 9) and physicians, nurses, and allied health workers (n = 11) emphasized: 1) the importance of contextualizing the MoC (triaging and care pathway) and proposed new services through in-person community engagement; 2) the need and desire for local non-pharmacological spine care approaches; and 3) streamlining patient triage and CLNS workflow. Recommendations for the streamlining included reducing managerial/administrative duties, educating new incoming clinicians, incorporating follow-up appointments for spine pain patients, and establishing an electronic medical record system along with a patient portal. Suggestions regarding how to sustain the new spine care services included providing transportation, protecting allocated clinic space, resolving insurance coverage discrepancies, addressing misconceptions about chiropractic care, instilling the value of physical activity for self-care and pain relief, and a short-term (30-day) incentivised movement program which considers a variety of movement options and offers a social component after each session. Conclusion: Community partners were favorable to the inclusion of a refined GSCI MoC. Adapting the TDF to unique Indigenous needs may help understand how best to implement the MoC in communities with similar needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), which includes both vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and carotid artery dissection (CAD), is the most serious safety concern associated with cervical spinal manipulation (CSM). We evaluated the association between CSM and CeAD among US adults. Methods: Through analysis of health claims data, we employed a case–control study with matched controls, a case–control design in which controls were diagnosed with ischemic stroke, and a case-crossover design in which recent exposures were compared to exposures in the same case that occurred 6–7 months earlier. We evaluated the association between CeAD and the 3-level exposure, CSM versus office visit for medical evaluation and management (E&M) versus neither, with E&M set as the referent group. Results: We identified 2337 VAD cases and 2916 CAD cases. Compared to population controls, VAD cases were 0.17 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.32) times as likely to have received CSM in the previous week as compared to E&M. In other words, E&M was about 5 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. CSM was 2.53 (95% CI 1.71 to 3.68) times as likely as E&M in the previous week among individuals with VAD than among individuals experiencing a stroke without CeAD. In the case-crossover study, CSM was 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.91) times as likely as E&M in the week before a VAD, relative to 6 months earlier. In other words, E&M was approximately 3 times more likely than CSM in the previous week in cases, relative to controls. Results for the 14-day and 30-day timeframes were similar to those at one week. Conclusion: Among privately insured US adults, the overall risk of CeAD is very low. Prior receipt of CSM was more likely than E&M among VAD patients as compared to stroke patients. However, for CAD patients as compared to stroke patients, as well as for both VAD and CAD patients in comparison with population controls and in case-crossover analysis, prior receipt of E&M was more likely than CSM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Examining workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain becomes increasingly important because of the changing nature of work and rising healthcare costs. Some psychosocial risk factors for back pain, such as work and family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment, and job insecurity, are understudied for the working population in the United States. Methods: Data used in this study came from the Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL), a supplementary module of the General Social Survey conducted in the United States. Data from the 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 QWL surveys were used in these analyses, giving a total sample size of 6661. Five domains of workplace psychosocial risk factors for back pain were examined, including job strain, low social support, work‐family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment (harassment and discrimination), and job insecurity. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of each psychosocial risk factor for back pain with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression model after controlling for job physical factors, occupation, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Results: Significant associations were found between back pain and several psychosocial factors including job strain (aOR 1.19; CI 1.00,1.41), work‐family imbalance (aOR,1.42; CI 1.22,1.64), harassment (aOR 1.40; CI 1.15,1.71), and discrimination (aOR 1.20 CI 1.00,1.44). Conclusion: This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between a variety of workplace psychosocial factors and back pain. Our findings suggest directions in future longitudinal research to examine emerging workplace psychosocial factors for back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.Methods: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.Results: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.Conclusion: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to synthesize recommendations on the use of common elective surgical and interventional procedures for individuals with persistent and disabling non-radicular/axial with or without myelopathy, radicular back pain, cervical myelopathy, symptomatic spinal stenosis, and fractures due to osteoporosis. This review was to inform a clinical care pathway on the patient presentations where surgical interventions could reasonably be considered.Methods: We synthesized recommendations from six evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and one appropriate use criteria guidance for the surgical and interventional management of persistent and disabling spine pain.Results: Lower priority surgery/conditions include fusion for lumbar/non-radicular neck pain and higher priority surgery/conditions include discectomy/decompressive surgery for cervical or lumbar radiculopathy, cervical myelopathy, and lumbar spinal stenosis. Epidural steroid injections are less expensive than most surgeries with fewer harms; however, benefits are small and short lived. Vertebroplasty should be considered over kyphoplasty as an option for patients with severe pain and disability due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.Conclusion: Elective surgery and interventional procedures could be limited in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries due to a lack of resources and surgeons and thus surgical and interventional procedures should be prioritized within these settings. There are non-invasive alternatives that produce similar outcomes and are a recommended option where surgical procedures are not available. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.Methods: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.Results: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.Conclusion: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.Methods: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.Results: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway.Methods: Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate.Results: Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended.Conclusions: An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.Methods: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.Results: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.Conclusion: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This article summarizes relevant findings related to low back and neck pain from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports for the purpose of informing the Global Spine Care Initiative.Methods: We reviewed and summarized back and neck pain burden data from two studies that were published in Lancet in 2016, namely: "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015" and "Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015."Results: In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5-128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups.Conclusion: Low back and neck pain prevalence and disability have increased markedly over the past 25 years and will likely increase further with population aging. Spinal disorders should be prioritized for research funding given the huge and growing global burden. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for prevention interventions for spinal disorders that could be delivered globally, but especially in underserved areas and in low- and middle-income countries.Methods: We extracted risk factors, associations, and comorbidities of common spinal disorders (e.g., back and neck pain, spinal trauma, infection, developmental disorders) from a scoping review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Categories were informed by the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) classification system using the biopsychosocial model. Risk factors were clustered and mapped visually. Potential prevention interventions for individuals and communities were identified.Results: Forty-one risk factors, 51 associations, and 39 comorbidities were extracted; some were associated with more than one disorder. Interventions were at primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention levels. Public health-related actions included screening for osteopenia, avoiding exposure to certain substances associated with spinal disorders, insuring adequate dietary intake for vitamins and minerals, smoking cessation, weight management, injury prevention, adequate physical activity, and avoiding harmful clinical practices (e.g., over-medicalization).Conclusion: Prevention principles and health promotion strategies were identified that were incorporated in the GSCI care pathway. Interventions should encourage healthy behaviors of individuals and promote public health interventions that are most likely to optimize physical and psychosocial health targeting the unique characteristics of each community. Prevention interventions that are implemented in medically underserved areas should be based upon best evidence, resource availability, and selected through group decision-making processes by individuals and the community. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.Methods: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.Results: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.Conclusion: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for the management of spinal disorders in low-income communities, with a focus on non-invasive pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for non-specific low back and neck pain.Methods: We synthesized two evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back and neck pain. Our recommendations considered benefits, harms, quality of evidence, and costs, with attention to feasibility in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.Results: Clinicians should provide education and reassurance, advise patients to remain active, and provide information about self-care options. For acute low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary conservative treatment options are exercise, manual therapy, superficial heat, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). For patients with chronic low back and neck pain without serious pathology, primary treatment options are exercise, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapies, acupuncture, biofeedback, progressive relaxation, massage, manual therapy, interdisciplinary rehabilitation, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and antidepressants. For patients with spinal pain with radiculopathy, clinicians may consider exercise, spinal manipulation, or NSAIDs; use of other interventions requires extrapolation from evidence regarding effectiveness for non-radicular spinal pain. Clinicians should not offer treatments that are not effective, including benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin injection, systemic corticosteroids, cervical collar, electrical muscle stimulation, short-wave diathermy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and traction.Conclusion: Guidelines developed for high-income settings were adapted to inform a care pathway and model of care for medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering factors such as costs and feasibility, in addition to benefits, harms, and the quality of underlying evidence. The selection of recommended conservative treatments must be finalized through discussion with the involved community and based on a biopsychosocial approach. Decision determinants for selecting recommended treatments include costs, availability of interventions, and cultural and patient preferences. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to synthesize literature on the burden of spinal disorders in rural communities to inform the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway and model of care for their application in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Inclusion criteria included all age groups with nonspecific low back pain, neck pain, and associated disorders, nonspecific thoracic spinal pain, musculoskeletal chest pain, radiculopathy, or spinal stenosis. Study designs included observational study design (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, ecologic, qualitative) or review or meta-analysis. After study selection, studies with low or moderate risk of bias were qualitatively synthesized.Results: Of 1150 potentially relevant articles, 43 were eligible and included in the review. All 10 low and 18 moderate risk of bias studies were cross-sectional, 14 of which included rural residents only. All studies included estimates of low back pain prevalence, one included neck pain and one reported estimates for spinal disorders other than back or neck pain. The prevalence of low back pain appears greater among females and in those with less education, psychological factors (stress, anxiety, depression), and alcohol consumers. The literature is inconsistent as to whether back pain is more common in rural or urban areas. High risk of bias in many studies, lack of data on disability and other burden measures and few studies on conditions other than back and neck pain preclude a more comprehensive assessment of the individual and community-based burden of spinal disorders in less-developed communities.Conclusion: We identified few high-quality studies that may inform patients, providers, policymakers, and other stakeholders about spinal disorders and their burden on individuals and communities in most rural places of the developing world. These findings should be a call to action to devote resources for high-quality research to fill these knowledge gaps in medically underserved areas and low and middle-income countries. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies.Results: We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain.Conclusions: When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.Methods: We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention.Results: Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved.Conclusion: Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a stratification scheme for surgical spinal care to serve as a framework for referrals and distribution of patients with spinal disorders.Methods: We used a modified Delphi process. A literature search identified experts for the consensus panel and the panel was expanded by inviting spine surgeons known to be global opinion leaders. After creating a seed document of five hierarchical levels of surgical care, a four-step modified Delphi process (question validation, collection of factors, evaluation of factors, re-evaluation of factors) was performed.Results: Of 78 invited experts, 19 participated in round 1, and of the 19, 14 participated in 2, and 12 in 3 and 4. Consensus was fairly heterogeneous for levels of care 2-4 (moderate resources). Only simple assessment methods based on the clinical skills of the medical personnel were considered feasible and safe in low-resource settings. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment were deemed feasible and safe in a specialized spine center. Accurate diagnostic workup was deemed feasible and safe for lower levels of care complexity (from level 3 upwards) compared to non-invasive procedures (level 4) and the full range of invasive procedures (level 5).Conclusion: This study introduces a five-level stratification scheme for the surgical care of spinal disorders. This stratification may provide input into the Global Spine Care Initiative care pathway that will be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to develop recommendations for non-invasive management of pain due to osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) that could be applied in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on the non-invasive management of OVCF. Eligible reviews were critically appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Low risk of bias systematic reviews and high-quality primary studies that were identified in the reviews were used to develop recommendations.Results: From 6 low risk of bias systematic reviews and 14 high-quality primary studies we established that for acute pain management, in addition to rest and analgesic medication, orthoses may provide temporary pain relief, in addition to early mobilization. Calcitonin can be considered as a supplement to analgesics; however, cost is of concern. Once acute pain control is achieved, exercise can be effective for improving function and quality of life.Conclusion: The findings from this study will help to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care for use in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. Conservative management of acute pain and recovery of function in adults with OVCF should include early mobilization, exercise, spinal orthosis for pain relief, and calcitonin for analgesic-refractory acute pain. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this review was to identify risk factors, prognostic factors, and comorbidities associated with common spinal disorders. Methods: A scoping review of the literature of common spinal disorders was performed through September 2016. To identify search terms, we developed 3 terminology groups for case definitions: 1) spinal pain of unknown origin, 2) spinal syndromes, and 3) spinal pathology. We used a comprehensive strategy to search PubMed for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of case-control studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials for risk and prognostic factors and cross-sectional studies describing associations and comorbidities. Results: Of 3,453 candidate papers, 145 met study criteria and were included in this review. Risk factors were reported for group 1: non-specific low back pain (smoking, overweight/obesity, negative recovery expectations), non-specific neck pain (high job demands, monotonous work); group 2: degenerative spinal disease (workers’ compensation claim, degenerative scoliosis), and group 3: spinal tuberculosis (age, imprisonment, previous history of tuberculosis), spinal cord injury (age, accidental injury), vertebral fracture from osteoporosis (type 1 diabetes, certain medications, smoking), and neural tube defects (folic acid deficit, anti-convulsant medications, chlorine, influenza, maternal obesity). A range of comorbidities was identified for spinal disorders. Conclusion: Many associated factors for common spinal disorders identified in this study are modifiable. The most common spinal disorders are co-morbid with general health conditions, but there is a lack of clarity in the literature differentiating which conditions are merely comorbid versus ones that are risk factors. Modifiable risk factors present opportunities for policy, research, and public health prevention efforts on both the individual patient and community levels. Further research into prevention interventions for spinal disorders is needed to address this gap in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Spine Care (WSC), established by volunteers from 5 continents, is dedicated to providing sustainable, evidence-based spine care to individuals and communities in low and middle-income countries consistent with available health-care resources and integrated within the local culture. The research committee approves and oversees the WSC's collaborative research and training projects worldwide and serves to create a sustainable research community for underserved populations focused on preventing disability from spinal disorders. The purpose of this article is to describe 4 projects overseen by the WSC research committee and to discuss several challenges and specific facilitators that allowed successful completion of initiatives. These novel projects, which involved establishing spine surgery expertise and data collection in the WSC clinics and surrounding communities, all met their aims. This was achieved by overcoming language and resource challenges, adapting to local customs, and taking time to build mutual respect and to nurture relationships with local investigators and stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neck pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition among workers in the United States. This study explores a set of workplace psychosocial and organization-related factors for neck pain. Methods Data used for this study come from the 2010 National Health Interview Survey which provides a representative sample of the US population. To account for the complex sampling design, the Taylor linearized variance estimation method was used. Logistic regression models were constructed to measure the associations. Results This study demonstrated significant associations between neck pain and a set of workplace risk factors, including work-family imbalance, exposure to a hostile work environment and job insecurity, non-standard work arrangements, multiple jobs, and long work hours. Conclusion Workers with neck pain may benefit from intervention programs that address issues related to these workplace risk factors. Future studies exploring both psychosocial risk factors and physical risk factors with a longitudinal design will be important. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:549-560, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC) is the property of Ubiquity Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Although chiropractors in the United States (US) have long suggested that their approach to managing spine pain is less costly than other health care providers (HCPs), it is unclear if available evidence supports this premise.Methods: A systematic review was conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to uncover studies that compared health care costs for patients with any type of spine pain who received chiropractic care or care from other HCPs. Only studies conducted in the US and published in English between 1993 and 2015 were included. Health care costs were summarized for studies examining: 1. private health plans, 2. workers' compensation (WC) plans, and 3. clinical outcomes. The quality of studies in the latter group was evaluated using a Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.Results: The search uncovered 1276 citations and 25 eligible studies, including 12 from private health plans, 6 from WC plans, and 7 that examined clinical outcomes. Chiropractic care was most commonly compared to care from a medical physician, with few details about the care received. Heterogeneity was noted among studies in patient selection, definition of spine pain, scope of costs compared, study duration, and methods to estimate costs. Overall, cost comparison studies from private health plans and WC plans reported that health care costs were lower with chiropractic care. In studies that also examined clinical outcomes, there were few differences in efficacy between groups, and health care costs were higher for those receiving chiropractic care. The effects of adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, or other factors between study groups were unclear.Conclusions: Although cost comparison studies suggest that health care costs were generally lower among patients whose spine pain was managed with chiropractic care, the studies reviewed had many methodological limitations. Better research is needed to determine if these differences in health care costs were attributable to the type of HCP managing their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Musculoskeletal diseases are the most common causes of long-term pain and disability worldwide and a growing international public health concern. However, the everyday burden and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are not well understood, especially among people living in low- and middle-income countries in Africa. Since 2011, World Spine Care, a nongovernmental organisation, has collaborated with the Botswana Ministry of Health to open spine care centres and to conduct research. The broad aim of the Muscle, Bone and Joint (MuBoJo) research project is to examine the sociocultural, organisational and clinical characteristics for the burden of living with and caring for people living with musculoskeletal conditions in rural Botswana. In this paper, we describe the community context, theoretical framework, and research methods to address the project aim with a qualitative study. Methods/Design: This focused ethnography is based on eight months (November 2011, April 2013, October 2013-March 2014) of fieldwork in Botswana. The project was theoretically informed by the concepts of explanatory models of illness, social suffering, and biographical disruption. Data collection included fieldnotes, non-participant and participant observations, and informal and in-depth interviews with villagers and healthcare providers. Villager interviews were typically conducted in Setswana with an interpreter. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim in the language spoken with Setswana contextually translated into English. Computer software supported qualitative data management. Analysis is ongoing using constant comparison and a template organising style to facilitate pattern-finding and reveal insights for the burden and care of musculoskeletal conditions. Discussion: Findings from the MuBoJo Project will document the context of musculoskeletal burden, illness beliefs, self-care behaviours, and healthcare options in a Botswana rural village. These data will inform ongoing efforts to establish spine care clinics for underserved populations in low-middle income countries and sustain these healthcare services through local providers and volunteer health professionals. This study also will generate new knowledge about the burden and impact of muscle, bone and joint disorders for cross-cultural comparisons and patient-centred interventions. Conclusions: Our systematic and transparent methodology to conduct musculoskeletal research in more than one language and in a cross-cultural setting may be useful for investigators and NGO healthcare personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The shared decision making process has become increasingly important in the management of spinal disorders where there remains a variety of treatment options. Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is often recommended as a conservative option by evidence based clinical practice guidelines and a treatment modality frequently utilized by chiropractors and other clinicians who offer SMT to their patients. This article serves as a commentary to a review of the methods that are often used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying their manipulative intervention. Though it may be easy to criticize any review of this type of literature and point out shortcomings there are strong take away messages for the clinician interested in employing SMT as a part of their treatment protocol. Most notably, clinicians can be reassured that a history on the localization of pain, tissue palpation, provocative testing, range of motion testing and the demonstration by the patient of the locus and description of pain have reasonable consistency between observers. What this paper does not inform us on is the nature of the lesion causing the pain or where the manipulation should be applied to obtain the best outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is an accompanying commentary on the article by Gert Bronfort and colleagues about the effectiveness of manual therapy. The two commentaries were provided independently and combined into this single article by the journal editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the hindrance facing rites of reconciliation. It states that parishioner participate in rites of general confession on Sunday, but falls back into old ways. It contends that people repent, but could not stop doing what they would not do. It also cites that sin remain and people continue in their self-absorption.

Best evidence synthesis. To provide evidence-based guidance to primary care clinicians about how to best assess and treat patients with neck pain. There is a need to translate the results of clinical and epidemiologic studies into meaningful and practical information for clinicians. Based on best evidence syntheses of published studies on the risk, prognosis, assessment, and management of people with neck pain and its associated disorders, plus additional research projects and focused literature reviews reported in this supplement, the 12member multidisciplinary Scientific Secretariat of the Neck Pain Task Force followed a 4-step approach to develop practical guidance for clinicians. The Neck Pain Task Force recommends that people seeking care for neck pain should be triaged into 4 groups: Grade I neck pain with no signs of major pathology and no or little interference with daily activities; Grade II neck pain with no signs of major pathology, but interference with daily activities; Grade III neck pain with neurologic signs of nerve compression; Grade IV neck pain with signs of major pathology. In the emergency room after blunt trauma to the neck, triage should be based on the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine rule. Those with a high risk of fracture should be further investigated with plain radiographs and/or CT-scan. In ambulatory primary care, triage should be based on history and physical examination alone, including screening for red flags and neurologic examination for signs of radiculopathy. Exercises and mobilization have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain after a motor vehicle collision. Exercises, mobilization, manipulation, analgesics, acupuncture, and low-level laser have been shown to provide some degree of short-term relief of Grade I or Grade II neck pain without trauma. Those with confirmed Grade III and severe persistent radicular symptoms might benefit from corticosteroid injections or surgery. Those with confirmed Grade IV neck pain require management specific to the diagnosed pathology. The best available evidence suggests initial assessment for neck pain should focus on triage into 4grades, and those with common neck pain (Grade I and Grade II) might be offered the listed noninvasive treatments if short-term relief is desired. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain. The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980– 2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain. We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain. The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients’ course, response to treatment, and in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in Grades I–III whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). Knowledge of the course of recovery of WAD guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning management and intervention strategies and effective compensation policies to decrease the burden of WAD. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 47 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in WAD. The evidence suggests that approximately 50% of those with WAD will report neck pain symptoms 1 year after their injuries. Greater initial pain, more symptoms, and greater initial disability predicted slower recovery. Few factors related to the collision itself (for example, direction of the collision, headrest type) were prognostic; however, postinjury psychological factors such as passive coping style, depressed mood, and fear of movement were prognostic for slower or less complete recovery. There is also preliminary evidence that the prevailing compensation system is prognostic for recovery in WAD. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for WAD. Recovery of WAD seems to be multifactorial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46 to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000 –2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example,we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observation and survey of values, beliefs, and conflicts of interest. To study the values, beliefs, and potential conflicts of interest that the Neck Pain Task Force brought to their deliberations. Researchers’ values and beliefs were studied to uncover areas of divergence and to develop guiding principles to assist decision making. An observer used direct observation and survey of the Neck Pain Task Force, facilitated discussion, and developed a “disclosure tool” to collect information about relationships between researchers, funders, and others with a vested interest in the outcome. Clinicians and research methodologists brought different imperatives to the research process. Clinicians focused on offering useful advice, whereas methodologists guarded investigative rigor to ensure that evidence actually supported advice. Group conflict did not polarize along “clinical discipline lines.” The Advisory Committee had greater impact when given a clear task and time to work as a group. The Neck Pain Task Force agreed on a set of “guiding principles,” which became an overarching doctrine to guide their work. The disclosure questionnaires described relationships between Neck Pain Task Force members and other entities that might have had a financial interest in the topic. This study describes a process used to assess values, beliefs, and conflicts of interest among members of a scientific task force, and how this was used to create “guiding principles” to assist the research team in deliberations, particularly when conflict arose. Most members of the Neck Pain Task Force had potential conflicts of interest with various stakeholders, but there was marked diffusion of these potential conflicts and no evidence that any funder or other vested interest stakeholder was likely to have a significant impact on the deliberations or conclusions of the Neck Pain Task Force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To provide a detailed description of the methods undertaken in a systematic search and perform a best evidence synthesis on the frequency, determinants, assessment, interventions, course and prognosis of neck pain, and its associated disorders. Neck pain is an important cause of health burden; however, the published information is vast, and stakeholders would benefit from a summary of the best evidence. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders conducted a systematic search and critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Citations were screened for relevance to the Neck Pain Task Force mandate, using a priori criteria, and relevant studies were critically reviewed for their internal scientific validity. Findings from studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were synthesized into a best evidence synthesis. We found 31,878 citations, of which 1203 were relevant to the mandate of the Neck Pain Task Force. After critical review, 552 studies (46) were judged scientifically admissible and were compiled into the best evidence synthesis. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the epidemiology, assessment and classification of neck pain, as well as interventions and prognosis for this symptom. This article reports the methods used and the outcomes from the review. We found that 46 of the research literature was of acceptable scientific quality to inform clinical practice, policy-making, and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on the burden and determinants of whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) after traffic collisions. Summary of Background Data. Previous best evidence synthesis on WAD has noted a lack of evidence regarding incidence of and risk factors for WAD. Therefore there was a warrant of a reanalyze of this body of research. A systematic search of Medline was conducted. The reviewers looked for studies on neck pain and its associated disorders published 1980 –2006. Each relevant study was independently and critically reviewed by rotating pairs of reviewers. Data from studies judged to have acceptable internal validity (scientifically admissible) were abstracted into evidence tables, and provide the body of the best evidence synthesis. The authors found 32 scientifically admissible studies related to the burden and determinants of WAD. In the Western world, visits to emergency rooms due to WAD have increased over the past 30 years. The annual cumulative incidence of WAD differed substantially between countries. They found that occupant seat position and collision impact direction were associated with WAD in one study. Eliminating insurance payments for pain and suffering were associated with a lower incidence of WAD injury claims in one study. Younger ages and being a female were both associated with filing claims or seeking care for WAD, although the evidence is not consistent. Preliminary evidence suggested that headrests/car seats, aimed to limiting head extension during rear-end collisions had a preventive effect on reporting WAD, especially in females. WAD after traffic collisions affects many people. Despite many years of research, the evidence regarding risk factors for WAD is sparse but seems to include personal, societal, and environmental factors. More research including, well-defined studies with accurate denominators for calculating risk, and better consideration of confounding factors, are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic review and best evidence synthesis. To describe the prevalence and incidence of neck pain and disability in workers; to identify risk factors for neck pain in workers; to propose an etiological diagram; and to make recommendations for future research. Previous reviews of the etiology of neck pain in workers relied on cross-sectional evidence. Recently published cohorts and randomized trials warrant a re-analysis of this body of research. We systematically searched Medline for literature published from 1980–2006. Retrieved articles were reviewed for relevance. Relevant articles were critically appraised. Articles judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis. One hundred and nine papers on the burden and determinants of neck pain in workers were scientifically admissible. The annual prevalence of neck pain varied from 27.1% in Norway to 47.8% in Québec, Canada. Each year, between 11% and 14.1% of workers were limited in their activities because of neck pain. Risk factors associated with neck pain in workers include age, previous musculoskeletal pain, high quantitative job demands, low social support at work, job insecurity, low physical capacity, poor computer workstation design and work posture, sedentary work position, repetitive work and precision work. We found preliminary evidence that gender, occupation, headaches, emotional problems, smoking, poor job satisfaction, awkward work postures, poor physical work environment, and workers’ ethnicity may be associated with neck pain. There is evidence that interventions aimed at modifying workstations and worker posture are not effective in reducing the incidence of neck pain in workers. Neck disorders are a significant source of pain and activity limitations in workers. Most neck pain results from complex relationships between individual and workplace risk factors. No prevention strategies have been shown to reduce the incidence of neck pain in workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best-evidence synthesis. To perform a best evidence synthesis on the course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders in workers. Knowledge of the course of neck pain in workers guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning effective workplace policies, formulating interventions and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the frequency and burden of neck pain in the workplace. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000−2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles related to course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After a critical review, 70 (31%) were accepted on scientific merit; 14 of these studies related to course and prognostic factors in working populations. Between 60% and 80% of workers with neck pain reported neck pain1 year later. Few workplace or physical job demands were identified as being linked to recovery from neck pain. However, workers with little influence on their own work situation had a slightly poorer prognosis, and white-collar workers had a better prognosis than blue-collar workers. General exercise was associated with better prognosis; prior neck pain and prior sick leave were associated with poorer prognosis. The Neck Pain Task Force presents a report of current best evidence on course and prognosis for neck pain. Few modifiable prognostic factors were identified; however, having some influence over one's own job and being physically active seem to hold promise as prognostic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Best evidence synthesis. To undertake a best evidence synthesis on course and prognosis of neck pain and its associated disorders in the general population. Knowing the course of neck pain guides expectations for recovery. Identifying prognostic factors assists in planning public policies, formulating interventions, and promoting lifestyle changes to decrease the burden of neck pain. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000 –2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain. Findings fromstudiesmeeting criteria for scientific validity were abstracted into evidence tables and included in a best evidence synthesis. We found 226 articles on the course and prognostic factors in neck pain and its associated disorders. After critical review, 70 (31) of these were accepted on scientific merit. Six studies related to course and 7 to prognostic factors in the general population. Between half and three quarters of persons in these populations with current neck pain will report neck pain again 1 to 5 years later. Younger age predicted better outcome. General exercise was unassociated with outcome, although regular bicycling predicted poor outcome in 1 study. Psychosocial factors, including psychologic health, coping patterns, and need to socialize, were the strongest prognostic factors. Several potential prognostic factors have not been well studied, including degenerative changes, genetic factors, and compensation policies. The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for this symptom. General exercise was not prognostic of better outcome; however, several psychosocial factors were prognostic of outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]