SPINE20 Recommendations 2024 -Spinal Disability: Social Inclusion as a Key to Prevention and Management

Spine disorders are the leading cause of disability worldwide. To promote social inclusion, it is essential to ensure that people can participate in their societies by improving their ability, opportunities, and dignity, through access to high-quality, evidence-based, and affordable spine services for all.To achieve this goal, SPINE20 recommends six actions.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based education to the community health workers and primary care clinicians to promote best practice for spine health, especially in underserved communities.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based, high-quality, cost-effective spine care interventions that are accessible, affordable and beneficial to patients.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries invest in Health Policy and System Research (HPSR) to generate evidence to develop and implement policies aimed at integrating rehabilitation in primary care to improve spine health.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries support ongoing research initiatives on digital technologies including artificial intelligence, regulate digital technologies, and promote evidence-based, ethical digital solutions in all aspects of spine care, to enrich patient care with high value and quality.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize social inclusion by promoting equitable access to comprehensive spine care through collaborations with healthcare providers, policymakers, and community organizations.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize spine health to improve the well-being and productivity of their populations. Government health systems are expected to create a healthier, more productive, and equitable society for all through collaborative efforts and sustained investment in evidence-based care and promotion of spine health.

Effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation following lumbar disc herniation surgery: A systematic review

Introduction

The effectiveness of post-surgical rehabilitation following lumbar disc herniation (LDH) surgery is unclear.

Research question

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions initiated within three months post-surgery for adults treated surgically for LDH.

Material and methods

This systematic review searched seven databases from inception to November 2023. Independent reviewers screened studies, assessed and extracted data, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

This systematic review retrieved 20,531 citations and included 25 randomized controlled trials. The high certainty evidence suggests that adding Pilates exercise to routine care and cognitive behavioral therapy may improve function immediately post-intervention (1 RCT), and that adding whole-body magnetic therapy to exercise, pharmacological and aquatic therapy may reduce low back pain intensity (1 RCT) immediately post-intervention. Compared to placebo, pregabalin did not reduce low back pain or leg pain intensity (1 RCT) (moderate to high certainty evidence). We found no differences between: 1) behavioral graded activity vs. physiotherapy (1 RCT); 2) exercise and education vs. neck massage or watchful waiting (1 RCT); 3) exercise, education, and in-hospital usual care vs. in-hospital usual care (1 RCT); 4) functional or staged exercise vs. usual post-surgical care including exercise (2 RCTs); and 5) supervised exercise with education vs. education (1 RCT). No studies assessed adverse events.

Discussion and conclusion

Evidence on effective and safe post-surgical rehabilitation interventions is sparse. This review identified two interventions with potential short-term benefits (Pilates exercises, whole-body magnetic therapy) but safety is unclear, and one with an iatrogenic effect (pregabalin).

Systematic Review Procedures for the World Health Organization (WHO) Evidence Syntheses on Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education/Advice, Structured Exercise Programs, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and Needling Therapies for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Adults

As commissioned by the WHO, we updated and expanded the scope of four systematic reviews to inform its (in development) clinical practice guideline for the management of CPLBP in adults, including older adults. Methodological details and results of each review are described in the respective articles in this series. In the last article of this series, we discuss methodological considerations, clinical implications and recommendations for future research.

Improving Rehabilitation Research to Optimize Care and Outcomes for People with Chronic Primary Low Back Pain: Methodological and Reporting Recommendations from a WHO Systematic Review Series

Chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) is a prevalent and disabling condition that often requires rehabilitation interventions to improve function and alleviate pain. This paper aims to advance future research, including systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), on CPLBP management. We provide methodological and reporting recommendations derived from our conducted systematic reviews, offering practical guidance for conducting robust research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for CPLBP. Our systematic reviews contributed to the development of a WHO clinical guideline for CPLBP. Based on our experience, we have identified methodological issues and recommendations, which are compiled in a comprehensive table and discussed systematically within established frameworks for reporting and critically appraising RCTs. In conclusion, embracing the complexity of CPLBP involves recognizing its multifactorial nature and diverse contexts and planning for varying treatment responses. By embracing this complexity and emphasizing methodological rigor, research in the field can be improved, potentially leading to better care and outcomes for individuals with CPLBP.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE

To evaluate benefits and harms of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from various electronic databases from July 1, 2007 to March 9, 2022. Eligible RCTs targeted TENS compared to placebo/sham, usual care, no intervention, or interventions with isolated TENS effects (i.e., combined TENS with treatment B versus treatment B alone) in adults with CPLBP. We extracted outcomes requested by the WHO Guideline Development Group, appraised the risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and graded the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (adults, n = 1027; adults ≥ 60 years, n = 28) out of 2010 records and 89 full text RCTs screened were included. The evidence suggested that TENS resulted in a marginal reduction in pain compared to sham (9 RCTs) in the immediate term (2 weeks) (mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% confidence interval  -1.54 to -0.26), and a reduction in pain catastrophizing in the short term (3 months) with TENS versus no intervention or interventions with TENS specific effects (1 RCT) (MD = -11.20, 95% CI -17.88 to -3.52). For other outcomes, little or no difference was found between TENS and the comparison interventions. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low certainty evidence, TENS resulted in brief and marginal reductions in pain (not deemed clinically important) and a short-term reduction in pain catastrophizing in adults with CPLBP, while little to no differences were found for other outcomes.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured and Standardized Education or Advice for Chronic Primary low back pain in Adults

PURPOSE

Evaluate benefits and harms of education/advice for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education/advice compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of education/advice could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses and graded the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We screened 2514 citations and 86 full text RCTs and included 15 RCTs. Most outcomes were assessed 3 to 6 months post-intervention. Compared with no intervention, education/advice improved pain (10 RCTs, MD = -1.1, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.56), function (10 RCTs, SMD = -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.12), physical health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (2 RCTs, MD = 24.27, 95% CI 12.93 to 35.61), fear avoidance (5 RCTs, SMD = -1.4, 95% CI -2.51 to -0.29), depression (1 RCT; MD = 2.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.15), and self-efficacy (1 RCT; MD = 4.4, 95% CI 2.77 to 6.03). Education/advice conferred less benefit than sham Kinesio taping for improving fear avoidance regarding physical activity (1 RCT, MD = 5.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.54). Compared with usual care, education/advice improved pain (1 RCT, MD = -2.10, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.07) and function (1 RCT, MD = -7.80, 95% CI -14.28 to -1.32). There was little or no difference between education/advice and comparisons for other outcomes. For all outcomes, the certainty of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

Education/advice in adults with CPLBP was associated with improvements in pain, function, HRQoL, and psychological outcomes, but with very low certainty.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Structured Exercise Programs for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE

Evaluate benefits and harms of structured exercise programs for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases (inception to 17 May 2022). Eligible RCTs targeted structured exercise programs compared to placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (including comparison interventions where the attributable effect of exercise could be isolated). We extracted outcomes, appraised risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses where appropriate, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

We screened 2503 records (after initial screening through Cochrane RCT Classifier and Cochrane Crowd) and 398 full text RCTs. Thirteen RCTs rated with overall low or unclear risk of bias were synthesized. Assessing individual exercise types (predominantly very low certainty evidence), pain reduction was associated with aerobic exercise and Pilates vs. no intervention, and motor control exercise vs. sham. Improved function was associated with mixed exercise vs. usual care, and Pilates vs. no intervention. Temporary increased minor pain was associated with mixed exercise vs. no intervention, and yoga vs. usual care. Little to no difference was found for other comparisons and outcomes. When pooling exercise types, exercise vs. no intervention probably reduces pain in adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.33, 95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.08) and functional limitations in adults and older adults (8 RCTs, SMD = - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.57 to - 0.05) (moderate certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

With moderate certainty, structured exercise programs probably reduce pain and functional limitations in adults and older people with CPLBP.

Systematic Review to Inform a World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Practice Guideline: Benefits and Harms of Needling Therapies for Chronic Primary Low Back Pain in Adults

PURPOSE

Evaluate benefits and harms of needling therapies (NT) for chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP) in adults to inform a World Health Organization (WHO) standard clinical guideline.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing NT compared with placebo/sham, usual care, or no intervention (comparing interventions where the attributable effect could be isolated). We conducted meta-analyses where indicated and graded the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We screened 1831 citations and 109 full text RCTs, yeilding 37 RCTs. The certainty of evidence was low or very low across all included outcomes. There was little or no difference between NT and comparisons across most outcomes; there may be some benefits for certain outcomes. Compared with sham, NT improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (physical) (2 RCTs; SMD = 0.20, 95%CI 0.07; 0.32) at 6 months. Compared with no intervention, NT reduced pain at 2 weeks (21 RCTs; MD = - 1.21, 95%CI - 1.50; - 0.92) and 3 months (9 RCTs; MD = - 1.56, 95%CI - 2.80; - 0.95); and reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (19 RCTs; SMD = - 1.39, 95%CI - 2.00; - 0.77) and 3 months (8 RCTs; SMD = - 0.57, 95%CI - 0.92; - 0.22). In older adults, NT reduced functional limitations at 2 weeks (SMD = - 1.10, 95%CI - 1.71; - 0.48) and 3 months (SMD = - 1.04, 95%CI - 1.66; - 0.43). Compared with usual care, NT reduced pain (MD = - 1.35, 95%CI - 1.86; - 0.84) and functional limitations (MD = - 2.55, 95%CI - 3.70; - 1.40) at 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, adults with CPLBP experienced some benefits in pain, functioning, or HRQoL with NT; however, evidence showed little to no differences for other outcomes.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Persons With Non-specific Low Back Pain With and Without Radiculopathy: Identification of Best Evidence for Rehabilitation to Develop the WHO's Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To Identify evidence-based rehabilitation interventions for persons with non-specific low back pain (LBP) with and without radiculopathy and to develop recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation (PIR).

DATA SOURCE

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, PEDro, the Trip Database, the Index to Chiropractic Literature and the gray literature.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible guidelines were (1) published between 2009 and 2019 in English, French, Italian, or Swedish; (2) included adults or children with non-specific LBP with or without radiculopathy; and (3) assessed the benefits of rehabilitation interventions on functioning. Pairs of independent reviewers assessed the quality of the CPGs using AGREE II.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 4 high-quality CPGs. Recommended interventions included (1) education about recovery expectations, self-management strategies, and maintenance of usual activities; (2) multimodal approaches incorporating education, exercise, and spinal manipulation; (3) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs combined with education in the acute stage; and (4) intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation that includes exercise and cognitive/behavioral interventions for persistent pain. We did not identify high-quality CPGs for people younger than 16 years of age.

CONCLUSION

We developed evidence-based recommendations from high-quality CPGs to inform the WHO PIR for people with LBP with and without radiculopathy. These recommendations emphasize the potential benefits of education, exercise, manual therapy, and cognitive/behavioral interventions.

SPINE20 recommendations 2023: One Earth, one family, one future WITHOUT spine DISABILITY

Introduction

The purpose is to report on the fourth set of recommendations developed by SPINE20 to advocate for evidence-based spine care globally under the theme of "One Earth, One Family, One Future WITHOUT Spine DISABILITY".

Research question

Not applicable.

Material and methods

Recommendations were developed and refined through two modified Delphi processes with international, multi-professional panels.

Results

Seven recommendations were delivered to the G20 countries calling them to:-establish, prioritize and implement accessible National Spine Care Programs to improve spine care and health outcomes.-eliminate structural barriers to accessing timely rehabilitation for spinal disorders to reduce poverty.-implement cost-effective, evidence-based practice for digital transformation in spine care, to deliver self-management and prevention, evaluate practice and measure outcomes.-monitor and reduce safety lapses in primary care including missed diagnoses of serious spine pathologies and risk factors for spinal disability and chronicity.-develop, implement and evaluate standardization processes for spine care delivery systems tailored to individual and population health needs.-ensure accessible and affordable quality care to persons with spine disorders, injuries and related disabilities throughout the lifespan.-promote and facilitate healthy lifestyle choices (including physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation) to improve spine wellness and health.

Discussion and conclusion

SPINE20 proposes that focusing on the recommendations would facilitate equitable access to health systems, affordable spine care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce, and education of persons with spine disorders, which will contribute to reducing spine disability, associated poverty, and increase productivity of the G20 nations.

Are respiratory disorders risk factors for troublesome neck/shoulder pain? A study of a general population cohort in Sweden

PURPOSE

The etiology of neck/shoulder pain is complex. Our purpose was to investigate if respiratory disorders are risk factors for troublesome neck/shoulder pain in people with no or occasional neck/shoulder pain.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was based on the Stockholm Public Health Cohorts (SPHC) 2006/2010 and the SPHC 2010/2014. We included adults who at baseline reported no or occasional neck/shoulder pain in the last six months, from the two subsamples (SPHC 06/10 n = 15 155: and SPHC 2010/14 n = 25 273). Exposures were self-reported asthma at baseline in SPHC 06/10 and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) at baseline in SPHC 10/14. The outcome was having experienced at least one period of troublesome neck/shoulder pain which restricted work capacity or hindered daily activities to some or to a high degree during the past six months, asked for four years later. Binomial regression analyses were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Adjusted results indicate that those reporting to suffer from asthma at baseline had a higher risk of troublesome neck/shoulder pain at follow-up four years later (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-2.01) as did those reporting to suffer from COPD (RR 2.12 95%CI 1.54-2.93).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that those with no or occasional neck/shoulder pain and reporting to suffer from asthma or COPD increase the risk for troublesome neck/shoulder pain over time. This highlights the importance of taking a multi-morbidity perspective into consideration in health care. Future longitudinal studies are needed to confirm our findings.

SPINE20 recommendations 2022: spine care-working together to recover stronger

PURPOSE

Globally, spine disorders are the leading cause of disability, affecting more than half a billion individuals. However, less than 50% of G20 countries specifically identify spine health within their public policy priorities. Therefore, it is crucial to raise awareness among policy makers of the disabling effect of spine disorders and their impact on the economic welfare of G20 nations. In 2019, SPINE20 was established as the leading advocacy group to bring global attention to spine disorders.

METHODS

Recommendations were developed through two Delphi methods with international and multi-professional panels.

RESULTS

In 2022, seven recommendations were delivered to the leaders of G20 countries, urging them to: Develop action plans to provide universal access to evidence-based spine care that incorporates the needs of minorities and vulnerable populations. Invest in the development of sustainable human resource capacity, through multisectoral and inter-professional competency-based education and training to promote evidence-based approaches to spine care, and to build an appropriate healthcare working environment that optimizes the delivery of safe health services. Develop policies using the best available evidence to properly manage spine disorders and to prolong functional healthy life expectancy in the era of an aging population. Create a competent workforce and improve the healthcare infrastructure/facilities including equipment to provide evidence-based inter-professional rehabilitation services to patients with spinal cord injury throughout their continuum of care. Build collaborative and innovative translational research capacity within national, regional, and global healthcare systems for state-of-the-art and cost-effective spine care across the healthcare continuum ensuring equality, diversity, and inclusion of all stakeholders. Develop international consensus statements on patient outcomes and how they can be used to define and develop pathways for value-based care. Recognize that intervening on determinants of health including physical activity, nutrition, physical and psychosocial workplace environment, and smoking-free lifestyle can reduce the burden of spine disabilities and improve the health status and wellness of the population. At the third SPINE20 summit 2022 which took place in Bali, Indonesia, in August 2022, 17 associations endorsed its recommendations.

CONCLUSION

SPINE20 advocacy efforts focus on developing public policy recommendations to improve the health, welfare, and wellness of all who suffer from spinal pain and disability. We propose that focusing on facilitating access to systems that prioritize value-based care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce will reduce disability and improve the productivity of the G20 nations.

SPINE20 recommendations 2021: spine care for people's health and prosperity

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.

Are Nonpharmacologic Interventions Delivered Through Synchronous Telehealth as Effective and Safe as In-Person Interventions for the Management of Patients With Nonacute Musculoskeletal Conditions? A Systematic Rapid Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether nonpharmacologic interventions delivered through synchronous telehealth are as effective and safe compared with in-person interventions for the management of patients with musculoskeletal conditions in improving pain, functioning, self-reported recovery, psychological outcomes, or health-related quality of life using rapid review methods.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to August 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English or French; we updated our search in January 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

One reviewer screened citations in 2 phases (phase 1: title/abstract; phase 2: full-text) selecting RCTs comparing synchronous telehealth with in-person care for the management of musculoskeletal conditions. A random 10% sample was screened by 2 independent reviewers with minimum 95% agreement prior to full screening. One reviewer critically appraised and one reviewer validated appraisal for eligible RCTs.

DATA EXTRACTION

One author extracted participant characteristics, setting, sample size, interventions, comparisons, follow-up period, and outcome data. A second author validated data extraction.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We summarized the findings narratively. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that synchronous telehealth (ie, videoconference or telephone calls) alone or in combination with in-person care leads to similar outcomes as in-person care alone for nonspecific low back pain, generalized osteoarthritis, hip or knee osteoarthritis, and nonacute headaches in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Synchronous telehealth may be an option for the management of nonacute musculoskeletal conditions in adults. However, our results may not be generalizable to rural or low socioeconomic populations. Future research should investigate the outcomes associated the use of new technologies, such as videoconference.

SPINE20 A global advocacy group promoting evidence-based spine care of value

PURPOSE

The Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Studies have estimated that low back pain is one of the costliest ailments worldwide. Subsequent to GBD publications, leadership of the four largest global spine societies agreed to form SPINE20. This article introduces the concept of SPINE20, the recommendations, and the future of this global advocacy group linked to G20 annual summits.

METHODS

The founders of SPINE20 advocacy group coordinated with G20 Saudi Arabia to conduct the SPINE20 summit in 2020. The summit was intended to promote evidence-based recommendations to use the most reliable information from high-level research. Eight areas of importance to mitigate spine disorders were identified through a voting process of the participating societies. Twelve recommendations were discussed and vetted.

RESULTS

The areas of immediate concern were "Aging spine," "Future of spine care," "Spinal cord injuries," "Children and adolescent spine," "Spine-related disability," "Spine Educational Standards," "Patient safety," and "Burden on economy." Twelve recommendations were created and endorsed by 31/33 spine societies and 2 journals globally during a vetted process through the SPINE20.org website and during the virtual inaugural meeting November 10-11, 2020 held from the G20 platform.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first time that international spine societies have joined to support actions to mitigate the burden of spine disorders across the globe. SPINE20 seeks to change awareness and treatment of spine pain by supporting local projects that implement value-based practices with healthcare policies that are culturally sensitive based on scientific evidence.

Noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration

OBJECTIVES

Objective of this study is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the noninvasive management of soft tissue disorders of the shoulder (shoulder pain), excluding major pathology.

METHODS

This guideline is based on high-quality evidence from seven systematic reviews. Multidisciplinary experts considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences when formulating recommendations. Target audience is clinicians; target population is adults with shoulder pain.

RESULTS

When managing patients with shoulder pain, clinicians should (a) rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of shoulder pain and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of most soft tissue shoulder pain; (b) develop a care plan in partnership with the patient; (c) for shoulder pain of any duration, consider low-level laser therapy; multimodal care (heat/cold, joint mobilization, and range of motion exercise); cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization for shoulder pain when associated pain or restricted movement of the cervicothoracic spine; or thoracic spine manipulation; (d) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, consider stretching and/or strengthening exercises; laser acupuncture; or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary); (e) for shoulder pain with calcific tendinitis on imaging, consider shock-wave therapy; (f) for shoulder pain of any duration, do not offer ultrasound; taping; interferential current therapy; diacutaneous fibrolysis; soft tissue massage; or cervicothoracic spine manipulation and mobilization as an adjunct to exercise (i.e., range of motion, strengthening and stretching exercise) for pain between the neck and the elbow at rest or during movement of the arm; (g) for shoulder pain >3-month duration, do not offer shock-wave therapy; and (h) should reassess the patient's status at each visit for worsening of symptoms or new physical, mental, or psychological symptoms, or satisfactory recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evidence-based guideline provides recommendations for non-invasive management of shoulder pain. The impact of the guideline in clinical practice requires further evaluation.

SIGNIFICANCE

Shoulder pain of any duration can be effectively treated with laser therapy, multimodal care (i.e., heat/cold, joint mobilization, range of motion exercise), or cervicothoracic manipulation and mobilization. Shoulder pain (>3 months) can be effectively treated with exercises, laser acupuncture, or general physician care (information, advice, and pharmacological pain management if necessary).

When boundaries blur - exploring healthcare providers' views of chiropractic interprofessional care and the Canadian Forces Health Services

INTRODUCTION

Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are primary reasons prohibiting Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel from being deployed, with back pain the second most common activity-limiting condition. CAF provides a spectrum of services, including chiropractic care. There is a paucity of data related to chiropractic interprofessional care (IPC) within CAF healthcare settings.

METHODS

A qualitative study, using an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach, involving 25 key informant interviews explored factors that impact chiropractic IPC. We used a systematic but not prescriptive process, based on a thematic analysis, to interconnect data to develop meaning and explanation. Initially, we explained and interpreted participant's experiences and meanings. Next, we used extant literature and theory, together with expert knowledge, to explain and interpret the meanings of participants' shared accounts.

RESULTS

We present findings central to the domain, Role Clarity, as described in the IPC Competency Framework. Our findings call for strengthening IPC specific to MSK conditions in the CAF, including an examination of gatekeeping roles, responsibilities and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

It is timely to investigate models of care that nurture and sustain inter-provider relationships in planning and coordinating evidence-based chiropractic care for MSK conditions, within the CAF, and its extended referral networks.

Distance Management of Spinal Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Evidence-Based Patient and Clinician Guides From the Global Spine Care Initiative

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.

Implementing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in health systems to support value-based care

Models of Care (MoCs), and their local Models of Service Delivery, for people with musculoskeletal conditions are becoming an acceptable way of supporting effective implementation of value-based care. MoCs can support the quadruple aim of value-based care through providing people with musculoskeletal disease improved access to health services, better health outcomes and satisfactory experience of their healthcare; ensure the health professionals involved are experiencing satisfaction in delivering such care and health system resources are better utilised. Implementation of MoCs is relevant at the levels of clinical practice (micro), service delivery organisations (meso) and health system (macro) levels. The development, implementation and evaluation of MoCs has evolved over the last decade to more purposively engage people with lived experience of their condition, to operationalise the Chronic Care Model and to employ innovative solutions. This paper explores how MoCs have evolved and are supporting the delivery of value-based care in health systems.

Burden of spine pain among rural and tribal populations in Raigad District of Maharashtra State of India

BACKGROUND

Among non-communicable disorders, low back and neck pain are the most common causes of severe, long-term pain and disability affecting more than a billion people globally. Yet, the burden and impact of these conditions are not well understood, especially among rural and tribal people living in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to measure point prevalence of low back and neck pain among rural and tribal people in Raigad District of Maharashtra, India, and explore attitudes and beliefs of rural people towards spine pain and disability.

DESIGN

In a cross-sectional survey of six villages in the Raigad District of Maharashtra State of India from August to October 2016, low back and neck pain were measured using the Spine Pain Questionnaire.

RESULTS

We surveyed 2323 participants, which did not include children and adolescents. Among rural people (n = 2073), the point prevalence of low back and neck pain was 4.9% (95% CI 3.94-5.79) and 2.9% (95% CI 2.21-8.87), respectively. Among tribal people (n = 250), prevalence was 10.0% (95% CI 6.28-13.71) for low back pain and 3.6% (95% CI 1.29-5.90) for neck pain. Lifting heavy weights and bending trunk were the most limiting activities. During informal discussions, most villagers attributed spine pain to traditional lifestyle and age. Participants continued occupational work in the presence of pain. Lack of transport facilities and cost of treatment emerged as the two most common reasons for delay in seeking treatment at nearby healthcare centres. This information will inform the development of customized spine care programmes through community-engaged partnerships and self-empowerment of the local community.

Anti-HCV prevalence and risk factor-based screening for hepatitis C in pregnant women and their partners in Sweden

BACKGROUND

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence in Sweden is estimated to be <0.5%, but unclear in pregnant women. The dominating route of transmission is drug use (DU), blood transfusions constituted a risk before 1992. The aim was to examine the anti-HCV prevalence and risk factors for HCV among pregnant women and their partners to evaluate screening strategies.

METHODS

Pregnant women and partners in Örebro County and in southern Stockholm were offered HCV-screening when visiting an antenatal clinic in 2013-2016, and completed a questionnaire concerning the country of birth, knowledge of HCV-status and HCV risk factors.

RESULTS

In Örebro 2,827 pregnant women and 707 partners, and in Stockholm 1,281 pregnant women and 320 partners participated. Anti-HCV was positive in 34 (0.7%) (25 pregnant women) and the associated risk factors were DU (n = 27), partner with HCV (n = 24) and not born in Sweden (n = 8). HCV RNA was positive in 23 (0.4%), 4 previously unknown and 10 who had been lost to follow-up. The most effective risk factor-based screening model for pregnant women included DU, blood transfusions, born in high prevalence country, partner with HCV, resulting in 538 (13%) pregnant women tested with 96% sensitivity, 87% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of expecting parents in two Swedish regions, the anti-HCV prevalence was 0.7% and 0.4% were viraemic, of which about 60% were previously unknown or lost to follow-up. Awaiting more studies, including cost-benefit analysis evaluating universal screening, we recommend this improved risk factor-based screening model to identify HCV-infected individuals who need follow-up and therapy.

Postsurgical rehabilitation for adults with low back pain with or without radiculopathy who were treated surgically: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Surgical rates for low back pain (LBP) have been increasing in Europe, North America and Asia. Many patients treated surgically will require postsurgical rehabilitation. Little is known about the effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions on health outcomes or about patients' experiences with these interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a mixed studies systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies regarding: (1) the effectiveness and safety of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions for adults with LBP treated surgically and (2) the experiences of patients, healthcare providers, caregivers or others involved with the rehabilitation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and the Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from inception in any language. Studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. We will also search reference lists of all eligible articles. Data extraction will include type of presurgical pathology, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, how the intervention was delivered and by whom, context and setting. We will conduct a quality assessment of each study and consider study quality in our evidence synthesis. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to synthesise and integrate data. First, we will synthesise the quantitative and qualitative studies independently, conducting a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies if appropriate and thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies. Then, we will integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence by juxtaposing the findings in a matrix.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) presentations at national and international conferences and scientific meetings; (2) presentations to local and international stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019134607.