Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Prevalence and characteristics of healthcare utilization with different providers among Canadians with chronic back problems: A population-based study.

Introduction: Understanding healthcare utilization by Canadians with back problems informs healthcare planning nationally. Research question: What is the prevalence of utilization of healthcare providers (medical doctors, chiropractors, physiotherapists, nurses), and associated characteristics among Canadians with chronic back problems (2001-2016)? Material and methods: This population-based study used Canadian Community Health Survey data (2001-2016) restricted to respondents with chronic back problems (aged ≥12 years). We used self-reported consultation with healthcare providers (medical doctors, chiropractors, physiotherapists, nurses) from 2001-2010, and self-reported regular healthcare provider from 2015-2016. We calculated the 12-month prevalence of utilization with providers, and used modified Poisson regression to assess sociodemographic, health-related and behavioural factors associated with utilization of different providers. Results: From 2001 to 2010 and 2015/2016, respectively, prevalence of utilization of medical doctors was 87.9% (95% CI 87.6-88.2) and 86.7% (95% CI 85.9-87.5); chiropractors 24.0% (95% CI 23.6-24.4) and 14.5% (95% CI 13.8-15.3); physiotherapists 17.2% (95% CI 16.9-17.6) and 10.7% (95% CI 10.0-11.4); nurses 14.0% (95% CI 13.7-14.2) and 6.6% (95% CI 6.1-7.0). Females were more likely to see any provider than males. Persons of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to consult chiropractors or physiotherapists (2001-2016), or nurses (2001-2010). Immigrants were less likely to consult chiropractors or nurses. Persons aged >65 years were less likely to consult chiropractors or physiotherapists, and those with fair/poor general health were less likely to consult chiropractors, but more likely to consult other providers. Discussion and conclusion: Medical doctors were most commonly consulted by Canadians with back problems, then chiropractors and physiotherapists. Characteristics of healthcare utilization varied by provider. Findings inform the need to strengthen healthcare delivery for Canadians with back problems.

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).

Characterizing high-cost healthcare users among adults with back pain in Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Some patients with back pain contribute disproportionately to high healthcare costs; however, characteristics of high-cost users with back pain are not well defined. We described high-cost healthcare users based on total costs among a population-based cohort of adults with back pain within the Ontario government's single-payer health system across sociodemographic, health, and behavioural characteristics. We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario adult (aged 18 years or older) respondents of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) with back pain (2003-2012), linked to administrative data (n = 36,605; weighted n = 2,076,937, representative of Ontario). Respondents were ranked based on gradients of total healthcare costs (top 1%, top 2%-5%, top 6%-50%, and bottom 50%) for 1 year following the CCHS survey, with high-cost users as top 5%. We used multinomial logistic regression to investigate characteristics associated with the 4 cost groups. Top 5% of cost users accounted for 49% ($4 billion CAD) of total healthcare spending, with inpatient hospital care as the largest contributing service type (approximately 40% of costs). Top 5% high-cost users were more likely aged 65 years or older (ORtop1% = 16.6; ORtop2-5% = 44.2), with lower income (ORtop1% = 3.6; ORtop 2-5% = 1.8), chronic disease(s) (ORtop1% = 3.8; ORtop2-5% = 1.6), Aggregated Diagnosis Groups measuring comorbidities (ORtop1% = 25.4; ORtop2-5% = 13.9), and fair/poor self-rated general health (ORtop1% = 6.7; ORtop2-5% = 4.6) compared with bottom 50% users. High-cost users tended to be current/former smokers, obese, and report fair/poor mental health. High-cost users (based on total costs) among adults with back pain account for nearly half of all healthcare spending over a 1-year period and are associated with older age, lower income, comorbidities, and fair/poor general health. Findings identify characteristics associated with a high-risk group for back pain to inform healthcare and public health strategies that target upstream determinants.

Introduction to target trial emulation in rehabilitation: a systematic approach to emulate a randomized controlled trial using observational data.

Rehabilitation providers and policymakers need valid evidence to make informed decisions about the healthcare needs of the population. Whenever possible, these decisions should be informed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there are circumstances when evidence needs to be generated rapidly, or when RCTs are not ethical or feasible. These situations apply to studying the effects of complex interventions, including rehabilitation as defined by Cochrane Rehabilitation. Therefore, we explore using the target trial emulation framework by Hernán and colleagues to obtain valid estimates of the causal effects of rehabilitation when RCTs cannot be conducted. Target trial emulation is a framework guiding the design and analysis of non-randomized comparative effectiveness studies using observational data, by emulating a hypothetical RCT. In the context of rehabilitation, we outline steps for applying the target trial emulation framework using real world data, highlighting methodological considerations, limitations, potential mitigating strategies, and causal inference and counterfactual theory as foundational principles to estimating causal effects. Overall, we aim to strengthen methodological approaches used to estimate causal effects of rehabilitation when RCTs cannot be conducted.

Prevalence of Unmet Rehabilitation Needs Among Canadians Living With Long-term Conditions or Disabilities During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the prevalence of unmet rehabilitation needs among a sample of Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Individuals residing in Canada during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities, 15 years or older living in 1 of the 10 provinces or 3 territories (n=13,487). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We defined unmet rehabilitation needs as those who reported needing rehabilitation (ie, physiotherapy/massage therapy/chiropractic, speech, or occupational therapy, counseling services, support groups) but did not receive it because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We calculated the national, age, gender, and province/territory-specific prevalence and 95% confidence interval of unmet rehabilitation needs. RESULTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the prevalence of unmet rehabilitation needs among Canadians with long-term conditions or disabilities was 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 48.3, 50.3]). The age-specific prevalence was higher among individuals 15-49 years old (55.6%; 95% CI [54.2, 57.1]) than those 50 years and older (46.0%; 95% CI [44.5, 47.4]). Females (53.7%; 95% CI [52.6, 54.9]) had higher unmet needs than males (44.1%; 95% CI [42.3, 45.9]). Unmet rehabilitation needs varied across provinces and territories. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, almost 50% of Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities had unmet rehabilitation needs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that a significant gap between the needs for and delivery of rehabilitation care existed during the early phase of the pandemic.

Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP. METHODS: We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF. RESULTS: Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79). CONCLUSIONS: Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.

Characteristics of Canadians living with long-term health conditions or disabilities who had unmet rehabilitation needs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics associated with unmet rehabilitation needs in a sample of Canadians with long-term health conditions or disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Data from the Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadians - Living with Long-Term Conditions and Disabilities, a national cross-sectional survey with 13,487 respondents. Unmet needs were defined as needing rehabilitation (i.e., physiotherapy/massage/chiropractic, speech therapy, occupational therapy, counselling services, or support groups) but not receiving due to the pandemic. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to examine the association between demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics, and unmet rehabilitation needs. RESULTS: More than half of the sample were ≥ 50 years (52.3%), female (53.8%), and 49.3% reported unmet rehabilitation needs. Those more likely to report unmet needs were females, those with lower socio-economic status (receiving disability benefits or social assistance, job loss, increased work hours, decreased household income or earnings), and those with lower perceived general health or mental health status. CONCLUSIONS: Among Canadians with disabilities or chronic health conditions, marginalized groups are more likely to report unmet rehabilitation needs. Understanding the systemic and upstream determinants is necessary to develop strategies to minimize unmet rehabilitation needs and facilitate the delivery of equitable rehabilitation services.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

Patient and provider characteristics associated with therapeutic intervention selection in a chiropractic clinical encounter: a cross-sectional analysis of the COAST and O-COAST study data.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors use a variety of therapeutic interventions in clinical practice. How the selection of interventions differs across musculoskeletal regions or with different patient and provider characteristics is currently unclear. This study aimed to describe how frequently different interventions are used for patients presenting for chiropractic care, and patient and provider characteristics associated with intervention selection. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Chiropractic Observation and Analysis STudy (COAST) and Ontario (O-COAST) studies: practice-based, cross-sectional studies in Victoria, Australia (2010-2012) and Ontario, Canada (2014-2015). Chiropractors recorded data on patient diagnosis and intervention selection from up to 100 consecutive patient visits. The frequency of interventions selected overall and for each diagnostic category (e.g., different musculoskeletal regions) were descriptively analysed. Univariable multi-level logistic regression (provider and patient as grouping factors), stratified by diagnostic category, was used to assess the association between patient/provider variables and intervention selection. RESULTS: Ninety-four chiropractors, representative of chiropractors in Victoria and Ontario for age, sex, and years in practice, participated. Data were collected on 7,966 patient visits (6419 unique patients), including 10,731 individual diagnoses (mean age: 43.7 (SD: 20.7), 57.8% female). Differences in patient characteristics and intervention selection were observed between chiropractors practicing in Australia and Canada. Overall, manipulation was the most common intervention, selected in 63% (95%CI:62-63) of encounters. However, for musculoskeletal conditions presenting in the extremities only, soft tissue therapies were more commonly used (65%, 95%CI:62-68). Manipulation was less likely to be performed if the patient was female (OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.84), older (OR:0.79, 95%CI:0.77-0.82), presenting for an initial visit (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.56-0.95) or new complaint (OR:0.82, 95%CI:0.71-0.95), had one or more comorbidities (OR:0.63, 95%CI:0.54-0.72), or was underweight (OR:0.47, 95%CI:0.35-0.63), or obese (OR:0.69, 95%CI:0.58-0.81). Chiropractors with more than five years clinical experience were less likely to provide advice/education (OR:0.37, 95%CI:0.16-0.87) and exercises (OR:0.17, 95%CI:0.06-0.44). CONCLUSION: In more than 10,000 diagnostic encounters, manipulation was the most common therapeutic intervention for spine-related problems, whereas soft tissue therapies were more common for extremity problems. Different patient and provider characteristics were associated with intervention selection. These data may be used to support further research on appropriate selection of interventions for common musculoskeletal complaints.

Effects of chiropractic use on medical healthcare utilization and costs in adults with back pain in Ontario, Canada from 2003 to 2018: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adults with back pain commonly consult chiropractors, but the impact of chiropractic use on medical utilization and costs within the Canadian health system is unclear. We assessed the association between chiropractic utilization and subsequent medical healthcare utilization and costs in a population-based cohort of Ontario adults with back pain. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study that included Ontario adult respondents of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) with back pain from 2003 to 2010 (n = 29,475), followed up to 2018. The CCHS data were individually-linked to individual-level health administrative data up to 2018. Chiropractic utilization was self-reported consultation with a chiropractor in the past 12 months. We propensity score-matched adults with and without chiropractic utilization, accounting for confounders. We evaluated back pain-specific and all-cause medical utilization and costs at 1- and 5-year follow-up using negative binomial and linear (log-transformed) regression, respectively. We assessed whether sex and prior specialist consultation in the past 12 months were effect modifiers of the association. RESULTS: There were 6972 matched pairs of CCHS respondents with and without chiropractic utilization. Women with chiropractic utilization had 0.8 times lower rate of cause-specific medical visits at follow-up than those without chiropractic utilization (RR5years = 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-1.00); this association was not found in men (RR5years = 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.24). There were no associations between chiropractic utilization and all-cause physician visits, all-cause emergency department visits, all-cause hospitalizations, or costs. Effect modification of the association between chiropractic utilization and cause-specific utilization by prior specialist consultation was found at 1-year but not 5-year follow-up; cause-specific utilization at 1 year was lower in adults without prior specialist consultation only (RR1year = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with back pain, chiropractic use is associated with lower rates of back pain-specific utilization in women but not men over a 5-year follow-up period. Findings have implications for guiding allied healthcare delivery in the Ontario health system.

Association between physiotherapy utilization and medical healthcare utilization and costs in adults with back pain from Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT: This study examined the association between physiotherapy utilization and subsequent medical healthcare utilization and costs in a population-based sample of adults with back pain in Ontario. We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario respondents with back pain (≥18 years) of the Canadian Community Health Survey 2003 to 2010 cycles, linked to health administrative data up to 2018. Physiotherapy utilization was defined as self-reported consultation with a physiotherapist in the past 12 months. A propensity score-matched cohort was conducted to match adults with and without physiotherapy utilization, accounting for potential confounders. We assessed associations using negative-binomial and linear (log-transformed) regression to evaluate outcomes of healthcare utilization (back pain-specific and all-cause) and costs, respectively, at 1- and 5-year follow-up. There were 4343 pairs of matched respondents. Compared with those who did not receive physiotherapy, adults who received physiotherapy were more likely to have back pain-specific physician visits (RR women (5years) = 1.48, 95% CI 1.24-1.75; RR men (5years) = 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.84). Women who received physiotherapy had 1.11 times the rate of all-cause physician visits (RR 1year = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20), and men who received physiotherapy had 0.84 times the rate of all-cause hospitalizations (RR 5years = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99) than those who did not. There was no association between physiotherapy utilization and healthcare costs. Adults with back pain who received physiotherapy are more likely to have back pain-specific physician visits up to 5-year follow-up than those who did not. Physiotherapy utilization is linked to some sex-based differences in all-cause healthcare utilization but not differences in costs. Findings inform interprofessional collaboration and allied healthcare delivery for back pain in Ontario.

Post-Concussion Symptoms and Disability in Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Studies investigating long-term symptoms and disability after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) have yielded mixed results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of self-reported post-concussion symptoms (PCS) and disability following mTBI. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycInfo to identify inception cohort studies of adults with mTBI. Paired reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We identified 43 eligible studies for the systematic review; 41 were rated as high risk of bias, primarily due to high attrition (> 20%). Twenty-one studies (49%) were included in the meta-analyses (five studies were narratively synthesized; 17 studies were duplicate reports). At 3-6 months post-injury, the estimated prevalence of PCS from random-effects meta-analyses was 31.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.4-38.4) using a lenient definition of PCS (2-4 mild severity PCS) and 18.3% (95% CI = 13.6-24.0) using a more stringent definition. The estimated prevalence of disability was 54.0% (95% CI = 49.4-58.6) and 29.6% (95% CI = 27.8-31.5) when defined as Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended <8 and <7, respectively. The prevalence of symptoms similar to PCS was higher in adults with mTBI versus orthopedic injury (prevalence ratio = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.22-2.02). In a meta-regression, attrition rate was the only study-related factor significantly associated with higher estimated prevalence of PCS. Setting attrition to 0%, the estimated prevalence of PCS (lenient definition) was 16.1%. We conclude that nearly one in three adults who present to an emergency department or trauma center with mTBI report at least mild severity PCS 3-6 months later, but controlling for attrition bias, the true prevalence may be one in six. Studies with representative samples and high retention rates are needed.

Measurement Properties and Minimal Important Change of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in Persons With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the measurement properties and minimal important change (MIC) of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) short (12 questions) and full (36 questions) versions in persons with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to May 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies assessed measurement properties or MIC of WHODAS 2.0 in persons with LBP. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Consensus-Based Standards for Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and COSMIN-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: We descriptively synthesized results stratified by measurement property and LBP duration (subacute: 6 weeks to 3 months; chronic: ≥3 months). RESULTS: We screened 297 citations and included 14 studies (reported in 15 articles). Methodological quality of studies was very good for internal consistency and varied between very good and doubtful for construct validity, doubtful for responsiveness, and adequate for all other properties assessed. Evidence suggests that WHODAS 2.0 full version has adequate content validity (2 studies); WHODAS 2.0 short and full versions have adequate structural validity (3 studies), but construct validity is indeterminate (9 studies). WHODAS 2.0 short and full versions have adequate internal consistency (10 studies), and the full version has adequate test-retest and interrater reliability (3 studies) in persons with LBP. Minimal detectable change (MDC) was 10.45-13.99 of 100 for the full version and 8.6 of 48 for the short version in persons with LBP (4 studies). WHODAS 2.0 full version has no floor or ceiling effects, but the short version has potential floor effects in persons with chronic LBP (3 studies). One study estimated MIC for the full version as 4.87 of 100 or 9.74 of 100 (corresponding to 1- and 2-point change on 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale for pain, respectively), and 1 study estimated 3.09-4.68 of 48 for the short version. CONCLUSIONS: In persons with LBP, WHODAS 2.0 full version has adequate content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability. WHODAS 2.0 short version has adequate structural validity and internal consistency. Construct validity of the short and full versions is indeterminate. Since MDC is estimated to be larger than MIC, users may consider both MIC and MDC thresholds to measure change in functioning for LBP.

Pre-rehabilitation scores of functioning measured using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in persons with nonspecific low back pain: a scoping review.

Knowledge of the pre-rehabilitation generic status of functioning in individuals with low back pain is necessary to understand the clinical utility of rehabilitation care. We conducted a scoping review to describe the pre-rehabilitation functioning status of persons with nonspecific low back pain using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS)-36 or WHODAS-12. We searched multiple databases from 2010 to 2021 for studies reporting pre-rehabilitation scores using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, and we descriptively summarized results by the duration of low back pain (acute/subacute <3 months; chronic ≥3 months), and the WHODAS version. Of 1770 citations screened, eight citations were relevant. Five studies were conducted in Europe, two in America, and one in the African Region (mostly high-income countries). In persons with acute low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 pre-rehabilitation summary score (complex scoring) was 22.8/100 (SD = 15.4) (one study). In persons with chronic low back pain, the mean WHODAS-36 summary score (complex scoring) ranged from 22.8/100 (SD = 5.7) to 41.5/100 (SD = 13.8) (two studies). For WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain, the mean summary score was 11.4/48 (SD = 8.7) or 14.4/48 (SD = 9.4) using simple scoring (two studies), and 25.8/100 (SD = 2.2) using complex scoring (one study). No floor or ceiling effects were observed in WHODAS-36 summary scores for chronic low back pain. Our scoping review comprehensively summarizes available studies reporting pre-rehabilitation levels of functioning using WHODAS in persons with low back pain. Persons with low back pain seeking rehabilitation have moderate limitations in functioning, and limitations level tends to be worse with chronic low back pain.