Advocating for population health: The role of public health practitioners in the age of artificial intelligence.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to transform Canadian organizations, driven by the promise of improved efficiency, better decision-making, and enhanced client experience. While AI holds great opportunities, there are also near-term impacts on the determinants of health and population health equity that are already emerging. If adoption is unregulated, there is a substantial risk that health inequities could be exacerbated through intended or unintended biases embedded in AI systems. New economic opportunities could be disproportionately leveraged by already privileged workers and owners of AI systems, reinforcing prevailing power dynamics. AI could also detrimentally affect population well-being by replacing human interactions rather than fostering social connectedness. Furthermore, AI-powered health misinformation could undermine effective public health communication. To respond to these challenges, public health must assess and report on the health equity impacts of AI, inform implementation to reduce health inequities, and facilitate intersectoral partnerships to foster development of policies and regulatory frameworks to mitigate risks. This commentary highlights AI's near-term risks for population health to inform a public health response.

RéSUMé: Au cours de la dernière décennie, l'intelligence artificielle (IA) a commencé à transformer les organismes canadiens en leur promettant une plus grande efficience, de meilleurs processus décisionnels et une expérience client enrichie. Bien qu'elle recèle d'immenses possibilités, l'IA aura des effets à court terme ­ qui se font d'ailleurs déjà sentir ­ sur les déterminants de la santé et sur l'équité en santé des populations. Si son adoption n'est pas réglementée, il se peut très bien que les iniquités en santé continuent d'être exacerbées par les préjugés, intentionnels ou non, ancrés dans les systèmes d'IA. Les nouvelles possibilités économiques pourraient être démesurément exploitées par les travailleurs et les travailleuses déjà privilégiés et par les propriétaires des systèmes d'IA, renforçant ainsi la dynamique de pouvoir existante. L'IA pourrait aussi nuire au bien-être des populations en remplaçant les interactions humaines au lieu de favoriser la connexité sociale. De plus, la mésinformation sur la santé alimentée par l'IA pourrait réduire l'efficacité des messages de santé publique. Pour relever ces défis, la santé publique devra évaluer et communiquer les effets de l'IA sur l'équité en santé, en modérer la mise en œuvre pour réduire les iniquités en santé, et faciliter des partenariats intersectoriels pour éclairer l'élaboration de politiques et de cadres réglementaires d'atténuation des risques. Le présent commentaire fait ressortir les risques à court terme de l'IA pour la santé des populations afin d'éclairer la riposte de la santé publique.

Exploring Social Determinants of Posttraumatic Pain, Distress, Depression, and Recovery Through Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal, and Nonlinear Trends.

OBJECTIVES: Pain, distress, and depression are predictors of posttrauma pain and recovery. We hypothesized that pretrauma characteristics of the person could predict posttrauma severity and recovery. METHODS: Sex, age, body mass index, income, education level, employment status, pre-existing chronic pain or psychopathology, and recent life stressors were collected from adults with acute musculoskeletal trauma through self-report. In study 1 (cross-sectional, n=128), pain severity was captured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), distress through the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) and depression through the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). In study 2 (longitudinal, n=112) recovery was predicted using scores on the Satisfaction and Recovery Index (SRI) and differences within and between classes were compared with identify pre-existing predictors of posttrauma recovery. RESULTS: Through bivariate, linear and nonlinear, and regression analyses, 8.4% (BPI) to 42.9% (PHQ-9) of variance in acute-stage predictors of chronicity was explainable through variables knowable before injury. In study 2 (longitudinal), latent growth curve analysis identified 3 meaningful SRI trajectories over 12 months. Trajectory 1 (start satisfied, stay satisfied [51%]) was identifiable by lower TIDS, BPI, and PHQ-9 scores, higher household income and less likely psychiatric comorbidity. The other 2 trajectories (start dissatisfied, stay dissatisfied [29%] versus start dissatisfied, become satisfied [20%]) were similar across most variables at baseline save for the "become satisfied" group being mean 10 years older and entering the study with a worse (lower) SRI score. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that 3 commonly reported predictors of chronic musculoskeletal pain (BPI, TIDS, PHQ-9) could be predicted by variables not related to the injurious event itself. The 3-trajectory recovery model mirrors other prior research in the field, though 2 trajectories look very similar at baseline despite very different 12-month outcomes. Researchers are encouraged to design studies that integrate, rather than exclude, the pre-existing variables described here.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.50 cm (95% CI -0.75 to -0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of -0.35 cm (-0.55 to -0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/3pwn2.

Effects of childhood trauma on pain-related distress in adults.

BACKGROUND: Much of the work in post-musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma and distress has been conducted through frameworks that start from the injury and go forward to better understand the trajectories and predictors of recovery. However, stress-diatheses models suggest that reactions to trauma are shaped by pre-existing experiences of the person more than the parameters of the event itself. In this study, we explore the effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on traumatic threat appraisal, distress and pain-related functional interference in adulthood. METHODS: Adult participants with acute, non-catastrophic musculoskeletal trauma completed a battery of questionnaires that included the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACEQ), the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (BIPQ), the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). An a priori model was evaluated through path analysis to determine the variance in BPI Interference scores explained through direct or indirect pathways between these variables (ACEQ->BIPQ, BIPQ->TIDS, TIDS->BPI). The analysis was repeated for the sample when disaggregated by sex. RESULTS: In n = 114, the base model was saturated. After removing non-significant pathways, the ACEQ->BIPQ->TIDS->BPI paths were significant and in the expected direction, explaining 57.1% of variance in acute BPI Interference score. When disaggregated by sex, the effect of ACEs on threat appraisal was only significant in men and not women, although this analysis was exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Acute pain-related interference could be predicted by post-traumatic distress and threat appraisal. Threat appraisal could be further predicted through ACEs, more childhood adversities were associated with more threatening appraisal of trauma in adulthood. The disaggregated finding that the effects of childhood adversities were only significant in males requires further exploration. SIGNIFICANCE: This study explores the potential pathways of the stress-diathesis model while focusing on adverse childhood experiences as a novel contribution to the field of acute post-trauma pain. The findings may inform future research design and interpretation of acute-to-chronic pain risk stratification tools.

Defining pain and interference recovery trajectories after acute non-catastrophic musculoskeletal trauma through growth mixture modeling.

BACKGROUND: Recovery trajectories support early identification of delayed recovery and can inform personalized management or phenotyping of risk profiles in patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the trajectories in pain severity and functional interference following non-catastrophic musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma in an international, mixed injury sample. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal cohort (n = 241) was formed from patients identified within four weeks of trauma, from attendance at emergency or urgent care centres located in London, ON, Canada, or Chicago, IL, USA. Pain interference was measured via the Brief Pain Inventory (London cohort) or the Neck Disability Index (Chicago cohort). Pain severity was captured in both cohorts using the numeric pain rating scale. Growth mixture modeling and RM repeated measures ANOVA approaches identified distinct trajectories of recovery within pain interference and pain severity data. RESULTS: For pain interference, the three trajectories were labeled accordingly: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lowest intercept, full or near full recovery by 3 months, 32.0% of the sample); Class 2 = Delayed recovery (higher intercept, recovery by 12 months, 26.7% of the sample); Class 3 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, persistently high interference scores at 12 months, 41.3% of the sample). For pain severity, the two trajectories were labeled: Class 1 = Rapid recovery (lower intercept, recovery by 3 months, 81.3% of the sample); and Class 2 = Minimal or no recovery (higher intercept, flat curve, 18.7% of the sample). The "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory could be predicted by female sex and axial (vs. peripheral) region of trauma with 74.3% accuracy across the 3 classes for the % Interference outcome. For the Pain Severity outcome, only region (axial trauma, 81.3% accuracy) predicted the "Minimal or No Recovery" trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that three meaningful recovery trajectories can be identified in an international, mixed-injury sample when pain interference is the outcome, and two recovery trajectories emerge when pain severity is the outcome. Females in the sample or people who suffered axial injuries (head, neck, or low back) were more likely to be classed in poor outcome trajectories. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institutes of Health - clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02711085 ; Retrospectively registered Mar 17, 2016).

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Management of acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain): protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: Acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018094412.

A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period.

When a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is presented in a simple reaction time (RT) task, response latency is significantly shortened. The present study used a SAS in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm to determine if a shortened RT1 latency would be propagated to RT2. Participants performed a simple RT task with an auditory stimulus (S1) requiring a vocal response (R1), followed by a visual stimulus (S2) requiring a key-lift response (R2). The two stimuli were separated by a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and a typical PRP effect was found. When S1 was replaced with a 124dB SAS, R1 onset was decreased by 40-50ms; however, rather than the predicted propagation of a shortened RT, significantly longer responses were found for RT2 on startle trials at short SOAs. Furthermore, the 100ms SOA condition exhibited reduced peak EMG for R2 on startle trials, as compared to non-startle trials. These results are attributed to the startling stimulus temporarily interfering with cognitive processing, delaying and altering the execution of the second response. In addition to this "startle refractory period," results also indicated that RT1 latencies were significantly lengthened for trials that immediately followed a startle trial, providing evidence for longer-term effects of the startling stimulus.