Search

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.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.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).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.

Purpose The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. Methods On September 17–18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. Results In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. Conclusions SPINE20’s initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Low back pain and depression have been globally recognized as key public health problems and they are considered co-morbid conditions. This study explores both cross-sectional and longitudinal comorbid associations between back pain and major depression in the adult population in the United States. We used data from the Midlife in the United States survey (MIDUS), linking MIDUS II and III with a sample size of 2358. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were used. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant associations between back pain and major depression. The longitudinal analysis indicated that back pain at baseline was prospectively associated with major depression at follow-up (PR 1.96, CI: 1.41, 2.74), controlling for health behavioral and demographic variables. Major depression at baseline was also prospectively associated with back pain at follow-up (PR 1.48, CI: 1.04, 2.13), controlling for a set of related confounders. These findings of a bidirectional comorbid association fill a gap in the current understanding of these comorbid conditions and could have clinical implications for the management and prevention of both depression and low back pain.

In this paper we pay homage to Dr Alan H. Adams, who was born on November 3, 1945, and passed away on December 26, 2020. An early adopter of problem-based learning and evidence-based medicine, he contributed substantially to improving chiropractic education, research, and developing an evidence-based practice mindset for chiropractic practice. People who knew Al best recall that he was a fluent instigator of collaborative relationships, and he inspired and advanced many people in their academic and scientific careers. His curiosity, expertise, and mentorship were appreciated by many people and developed numerous interprofessional collaborations.

Spinal pain and chronic health conditions are highly prevalent, burdensome, and costly conditions, both in the United States and globally. Using cross-sectional data from the 2016 through 2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 26,926), we explored associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions and investigated the influence that a set of confounders may have on the associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions. Variance estimation method was used to compute weighted descriptive statistics and measures of associations with multinomial logistic regression models. All four chronic health conditions significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain; cardiovascular conditions by 58%, hypertension by 40%, diabetes by 25% and obesity by 34%, controlling for all the confounders. For all chronic health conditions, tobacco use (45–50%), being insufficiently active (17–20%), sleep problems (180–184%), cognitive impairment (90–100%), and mental health conditions (68–80%) significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain compared to cases without spinal pain. These findings provide evidence to support research on the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions with approaches of spinal pain management.

Study design We combined elements of cohort and crossover-cohort design. Objective The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) and Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) regarding escalation of care for patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Summary of background data Current evidence-based guidelines for clinical management of cLBP include both OAT and SMT. For long-term care of older adults, the efficiency and value of continuing either OAT or SMT are uncertain. Methods We examined Medicare claims data spanning a five-year period. We included older Medicare beneficiaries with an episode of cLBP beginning in 2013. All patients were continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D. We analyzed the cumulative frequency of encounters indicative of an escalation of care for cLBP, including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, advanced diagnostic imaging, specialist visits, lumbosacral surgery, interventional pain medicine techniques, and encounters for potential complications of cLBP. Results SMT was associated with lower rates of escalation of care as compared to OAT. The adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was approximately 2.5 times higher for initial choice of OAT vs. initial choice of SMT (with weighted propensity scoring: rate ratio 2.67, 95% CI 2.64-2.69, p Conclusions Among older Medicare beneficiaries who initiated long-term care for cLBP with opioid analgesic therapy, the adjusted rate of escalated care encounters was significantly higher as compared to those who initiated care with spinal manipulative therapy.Level of Evidence: 3.

OBJECTIVE This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's (ACOEM) Low Back Disorders Guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for non-invasive and minimally invasive management of low back disorders. METHODS Systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking. A total of 70 high-quality and 564 moderate-quality trials were identified for non-invasive low back disorders. Detailed algorithms were developed. RESULTS Guidance has been developed for the management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 121 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION Quality evidence should guide treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Study design Retrospective observational study. Objective Opioid Analgesic Therapy (OAT) and Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) are evidence-based strategies for treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), but the long-term safety of these therapies is uncertain. The objective of this study was to compare OAT versus SMT with regard to risk of adverse drug events (ADEs) among older adults with cLBP. Summary of background data We examined Medicare claims data spanning a 5-year period on fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 84 years, continuously enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D for a 60-month study period, and with an episode of cLBP in 2013. We excluded patients with a diagnosis of cancer or use of hospice care. Methods All included patients received long-term management of cLBP with SMT or OAT. We assembled cohorts of patients who received SMT or OAT only, and cohorts of patients who crossed over from OAT to SMT or from SMT to OAT. We used Poisson regression to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio for outpatient ADE among patients who initially chose OAT as compared with SMT. Results With controlling for patient characteristics, health status, and propensity score, the adjusted rate of ADE was more than 42 times higher for initial choice of OAT versus initial choice of SMT (rate ratio 42.85, 95% CI 34.16-53.76, P Conclusion Among older Medicare beneficiaries who received long-term care for cLBP the adjusted rate of ADE for patients who initially chose OAT was substantially higher than those who initially chose SMT.Level of Evidence: 2.

In this paper we pay homage to Dr Alan H. Adams, who was born on November 3, 1945, and passed away on December 26, 2020. An early adopter of problem-based learning and evidence-based medicine, he contributed substantially to improving chiropractic education, research, and developing an evidence-based practice mindset for chiropractic practice. People who knew Al best recall that he was a fluent instigator of collaborative relationships, and he inspired and advanced many people in their academic and scientific careers. His curiosity, expertise, and mentorship were appreciated by many people and developed numerous interprofessional collaborations.

IntroductionDespite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health.MethodsDesign: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions.ResultsPhase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening.ConclusionAn empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.

The objective of this study was to compare patients' perspectives on the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to prescription drug therapy (PDT) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient beliefs, and satisfaction with treatment.Four cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries were assembled according to previous treatment received as evidenced in claims data: SMT, PDT, and 2 crossover cohorts (where participants experienced both types of treatments). A total of 195 Medicare beneficiaries responded to the survey. Outcome measures used were a 0-to-10 numeric rating scale to measure satisfaction, the Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire to measure patient beliefs, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey to measure HRQoL.Recipients of SMT were more likely to be very satisfied with their care (84%) than recipients of PDT (50%; P = .002). The SMT cohort self-reported significantly higher HRQoL compared to the PDT cohort; mean differences in physical and mental health scores on the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were 12.85 and 9.92, respectively. The SMT cohort had a lower degree of concern regarding chiropractic care for their back pain compared to the PDT cohort's reported concern about PDT (P = .03).Among older Medicare beneficiaries with chronic low back pain, long-term recipients of SMT had higher self-reported rates of HRQoL and greater satisfaction with their modality of care than long-term recipients of PDT. Participants who had longer-term management of care were more likely to have positive attitudes and beliefs toward the mode of care they received.

Objective The aim of this study was to summarize evidence-based diagnostic guidelines for low back disorders. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted. A total of 101 articles of high or moderate quality addressing low back disorders diagnostic evaluation met the inclusion criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and graded from (A) to (C) in favor and against the specific diagnostic test, with (A) level having the highest quality body of literature. Expert consensus was employed for insufficient evidence (I) to develop consensus guidance. Results Recommendations are given for these diagnostic tests: functional capacity evaluations, roentgenograms (x-rays), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized tomography, myelography, bone scans, single proton emission computed tomography, electromyography, surface electromyography, ultrasound, thermography, fluoroscopy, videofluoroscopy, lumbar discography, MRI discography, and myeloscopy. Conclusion Diagnostic testing is not indicated for the majority of patients with low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. RESULTS: The study sample totaled 28,160 subjects, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT as compared to those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; p

OBJECTIVE This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders. METHODS Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders. RESULTS Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations. CONCLUSION Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Objective Spinal manipulation (SM) is recommended for first-line treatment of patients with low back pain. Inadequate access to SM may result in inequitable spine care for older US adults, but the supply of clinicians who provide SM under Medicare is uncertain. The purpose of this study was to measure temporal trends and geographic variations in the supply of clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries. Methods Medicare is a US government–administered health insurance program that provides coverage primarily for older adults and people with disabilities. We used a serial cross-sectional design to examine Medicare administrative data from 2007 to 2015 for SM services identified by procedure code. We identified unique providers by National Provider Identifier and distinguished between chiropractors and other specialties by Physician Specialty Code. We calculated supply as the number of providers per 100 000 beneficiaries, stratified by geographic location and year. Results Of all clinicians who provide SM to Medicare beneficiaries, 97% to 98% are doctors of chiropractic. The geographic supply of doctors of chiropractic providing SM services in 2015 ranged from 20/100 000 in the District of Columbia to 260/100 000 in North Dakota. The supply of other specialists performing the same services ranged from fewer than 1/100 000 in 11 states to 8/100 000 in Colorado. Nationally, the number of Medicare-active chiropractors declined from 47 102 in 2007 to 45 543 in 2015. The count of other clinicians providing SM rose from 700 in 2007 to 1441 in 2015. Conclusion Chiropractors constitute the vast majority of clinicians who bill for SM services to Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of Medicare-active SM providers varies widely by state. The overall supply of SM providers under Medicare is declining, while the supply of nonchiropractors who provide SM is growing.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. Objective The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. Methods Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. Results The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. Conclusions The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly limited patients' access to care for spine-related symptoms and disorders. However, physical distancing between clinicians and patients with spine-related symptoms is not solely limited to restrictions imposed by pandemic-related lockdowns. In most low- and middle-income countries, as well as many underserved marginalized communities in high-income countries, there is little to no access to clinicians trained in evidence-based care for people experiencing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to describe the development and present the components of evidence-based patient and clinician guides for the management of spinal disorders where in-person care is not available. METHODS Ultimately, two sets of guides were developed (one for patients and one for clinicians) by extracting information from the published Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) papers. An international, interprofessional team of 29 participants from 10 countries on 4 continents participated. The team included practitioners in family medicine, neurology, physiatry, rheumatology, psychology, chiropractic, physical therapy, and yoga, as well as epidemiologists, research methodologists, and laypeople. The participants were invited to review, edit, and comment on the guides in an open iterative consensus process. RESULTS The Patient Guide is a simple 2-step process. The first step describes the nature of the symptoms or concerns. The second step provides information that a patient can use when considering self-care, determining whether to contact a clinician, or considering seeking emergency care. The Clinician Guide is a 5-step process: (1) Obtain and document patient demographics, location of primary clinical symptoms, and psychosocial information. (2) Review the symptoms noted in the patient guide. (3) Determine the GSCI classification of the patient’s spine-related complaints. (4) Ask additional questions to determine the GSCI subclassification of the symptom pattern. (5) Consider appropriate treatment interventions. CONCLUSIONS The Patient and Clinician Guides are designed to be sufficiently clear to be useful to all patients and clinicians, irrespective of their location, education, professional qualifications, and experience. However, they are comprehensive enough to provide guidance on the management of all spine-related symptoms or disorders, including triage for serious and specific diseases. They are consistent with widely accepted evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. They also allow for adequate documentation and medical record keeping. These guides should be of value during periods of government-mandated physical or social distancing due to infectious diseases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They should also be of value in underserved communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries where there is a dearth of accessible trained spine care clinicians. These guides have the potential to reduce the overutilization of unnecessary and expensive interventions while empowering patients to self-manage uncomplicated spinal pain with the assistance of their clinician, either through direct in-person consultation or via telehealth communication.

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. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]

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. 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. 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). 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Objectives The aims of this study were to (1) report the prevalence and explore the influence of spinal pain on quality of life and (2) assess the relationship between spinal pain and the type and number of comorbidities. Methods This cross-sectional study comprised 579 community-dwelling, older Australian women. Women had “spinal pain” if they marked “yes” to neck pain, upper back pain, mid-back pain, and/or lower back pain. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were performed to report the prevalence and explore the relationship between spinal pain and the type and number of comorbidities. Results A majority of women (55.8%) who returned surveys had spinal pain. Women with spinal pain had significantly lower physical and mental quality of life scores than women without spinal pain (Medical Outcomes Study: 36 Item Short Form Survey [SF-36] physical component summary: 40.1 ± 11.1 vs 49.0 ± 9.0, and SF-36 mental component summary: 50.0 ± 10.5 vs 53.9 ± 8.2, respectively). Having spinal pain was significantly associated with overweight and obesity (odds ratio 1.98 [95% confidence interval 1.3-2.96] and 2.12 [1.37-3.28]), diabetes (1.93 [1.01-3.67]), pulmonary comorbidity (1.66 [1.04-2.65]), and cardiovascular comorbidity (1.57 [1.07-2.28]). More than half of the women with spinal pain reported 2 or more comorbidities, with comorbidities significantly more common among women with spinal pain than among women without spinal pain. The odds of having spinal pain increased with an increasing number of comorbidities (2 comorbidities: 2.44 [1.47-4.04], 3 comorbidities: 3.07 [1.66-5.67], 4 comorbidities: 5.05 [1.64-15.54]). Conclusions Spinal pain is common in community-dwelling, older Australian women and is associated with greater disability and poorer quality of life. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and obesity appear to have a relationship with spinal pain. There was an incremental increase in the risk of spinal pain associated with increasing comorbidity count.

Background Chiropractic manipulation is a popular treatment for neck pain and headache, but may increase the risk of cervical artery dissection and stroke. Patients with carotid artery dissection can present with neck pain and/or headache before experiencing a stroke. These are common symptoms seen by both chiropractors and primary care physicians (PCPs). We aimed to assess the risk of carotid artery stroke after chiropractic care by comparing association between chiropractic and PCP visits and subsequent stroke. Methods A population-based, case-crossover study was undertaken in Ontario, Canada. All incident cases of carotid artery stroke admitted to hospitals over a 9-year period were identified. Cases served as their own controls. Exposures to chiropractic and PCP services were determined from health billing records. Results We compared 15,523 cases to 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days prior to the stroke. Positive associations were found for both chiropractic and PCP visits and subsequent stroke in patients less than 45 years of age. These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for neck pain and headache-related diagnoses. There was no significant difference between chiropractic and PCP risk estimates. We found no association between chiropractic visits and stroke in those 45 years of age or older. Conclusions We found no excess risk of carotid artery stroke after chiropractic care. Associations between chiropractic and PCP visits and stroke were similar and likely due to patients with early dissection-related symptoms seeking care prior to developing their strokes.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa. Methods A survey consisting of questions on demographics, clinical practice, and patient profile was administered to 608 chiropractors practicing in the different countries of the African continent. Chiropractic association officers of each country were contacted via e-mail for assistance in the distribution of the survey link to chiropractors in their country. The initial questionnaire was pretested with a small group of chiropractors from 2 African countries—4 from Ethiopia and 6 from Botswana—to assess the validity of the questions. The legal status of the chiropractic practice was obtained from online resources. Descriptive statistics were conducted in Microsoft Excel. Results Of the 54 countries in the continent of Africa, 23 countries were identified to have chiropractors. One hundred twenty-four surveys were returned from 15 countries with an overall response rate of 20.3% by clinicians with varying years in clinical practice. Nearly 84% of the chiropractors were between ages 26 and 50. More than 69% reported being a graduate of 1 of the 2 academic institutions located in Africa. Most chiropractors practice in South Africa. Most chiropractors practice in privately owned clinics, and 38% practice in multidisciplinary clinics. Nearly 92% reported using diversified technique and 27% used McKenzie exercises for treatment. Patients presented with a variety of conditions, predominantly chronic pain (59%). Conclusions This study provides a general overview on the status, supply, demographics, and characteristics of chiropractic practice in the continent of Africa. The supply of chiropractors in Africa is scarce and unevenly distributed. Although in the early stages of recognition, chiropractors in Africa are contributing to the care of people with musculoskeletal and spine-related disorders. Considering the high burden of spine pain, there appears to be potential for growth for chiropractic in the continent of Africa.

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.

The McAndrews Leadership Lecture was developed by the American Chiropractic Association to honor the legacy of Jerome F. McAndrews, DC, and George P. McAndrews, JD, and their contributions to the chiropractic profession. This article is a transcription of the presentation made by Dr Scott Haldeman on February 28, 2015, in Washington, DC, at the National Chiropractic Leadership Conference.

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. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

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. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

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. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.].

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally. 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. 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. 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. The Global Spine Care Initiative and this study were funded by grants from the Skoll Foundation and NCMIC Foundation. World Spine Care provided financial management for this project. The funders had no role in study design, analysis, or preparation of this paper. Sí

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. The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) was funded by grants from the Skoll Foundation (www.skoll.org) and NCMIC Foundation (www.ncmicfoundation.org) (SH). World Spine Care provided financial management for the GSCI project. The grantors had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Open access funding for this study provided by Brighthall, Inc. BNG and CDJ are officers of Brighthall. Sí

Study design This study uses the Taylor linearized variance estimation method to compute weighted unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of neck pain by occupation, with a cross-section data set from the 2009 to 2012 National Health Interview Survey. Objective The goal of this study was to explore occupational patterns of neck pain and the relationship between long work hours and neck pain in the working population in the United States. Summary of background data The past research has demonstrated that specific occupations have a high prevalence of neck pain. However, occupational patterns of neck pain in the United States have been understudied. Methods Risk of neck pain was estimated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression with odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association. Results After controlling for demographic, socioeconomic status, and behavior-related factors and compared with workers in architecture and engineering occupation group, the top 5 occupational groups with significantly higher relative prevalence of neck pain included: military specific (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.17-5.35); arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17); life, physical, and social science (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.33-2.11); health care support (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.23-1.97); and installation, maintenance, and repair (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.96). Compared with those who worked 40 hours, people who worked 46 to 59 hours (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30) and 60 or more hours of work per week (OR, 1.35; 95% CI-1.21, 1.51) were more likely to report neck pain. Conclusion This study adds to the evidence that an individual's occupation and work hours affect workers' risk for neck pain. This study indicates a need for new research efforts and public policies targeted to workers who are susceptible to neck pain in the United States. Level of evidence 1.

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. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

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. 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. 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. 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.