Effect of Exercise on Mental Health and Health-related Quality of Life in Adults With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of exercise interventions on mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with SCI. DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase, CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, and SPORTDiscus from inception to September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials that (1) involved participants ≥18 years old with a SCI; (2) administered an exercise intervention; and (3) measured subjective well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being, and/or HRQoL as outcomes. We reported standardized means differences (d) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), assessed the risk of bias by using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2), and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen studies (797 participants, mean age <65 years in every study) were included. Exercise improved overall well-being (d=0.494; 95% CI 0.268, 0.720; low certainty evidence), subjective well-being (d=0.543; 95% CI 0.270, 0.816; low certainty evidence), psychological well-being (d=0.499; 95% CI 0.193, 0.805; low certainty evidence), social well-being (d=0.452; 95% CI 0.151, 0.752; low certainty evidence), and HRQoL (d=0.323; 95% CI 0.072, 0.574; low certainty evidence). Four serious adverse events probably attributable to the interventions were reported in 3 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions can improve well-being and HRQoL in adults with SCI <65 years of age. Additional research is needed to determine effectiveness in adults ≥65 years of age.

International consensus on the non-pharmacological and non-surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

We identified a knowledge gap in the non-pharmacological and non-surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. MAIN RESULTS: This international consensus process established multidisciplinary biopsychosocial recommendations on pain, nutrition, safe movement, and exercise for individuals with acute and chronic vertebral fractures. SIGNIFICANCE: These recommendations will guide clinical practice and inform interventions for future research. PURPOSE: To establish international consensus on recommendations for the non-pharmacological and non-surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures. METHODS: We adopted a five-step modified Delphi consensus process: (1) literature search and content analysis, (2) creation of the survey, (3) selection of the expert panel, (4) first round of the rating process, and (5) second round of the rating process. The first round included 49 statements and eight open-ended questions; the second round included 30 statements. Panelists were asked to rate their agreement with each of the statements using a 9-point scale, with the option to provide further comments. Consensus for each statement was determined by counting the number of panelists whose rating was outside the 3-point region containing the median. RESULTS: We invited 76 people with degree in medicine, physiotherapy, kinesiology, and experience in the management of osteoporotic vertebral; 31 (41%) and 27 (36%) experts agreed to participate to the first and the second round, respectively. The mean percentage agreement after the first and second rounds was 76.6% ± 16.0% and 90.7% ± 6.5%, respectively. We established consensus on recommendations on pain, early satiety, weight loss, bracing, safe movement, and exercise for individuals with acute and chronic vertebral fractures. CONCLUSION: Our international consensus provides multidisciplinary biopsychosocial recommendations to guide the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and inform interventions for future research.

Clinical practice guideline for management of osteoporosis and fracture prevention in Canada: 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, more than 2 million people live with osteoporosis, a disease that increases the risk for fractures, which result in excess mortality and morbidity, decreased quality of life and loss of autonomy. This guideline update is intended to assist Canadian health care professionals in the delivery of care to optimize skeletal health and prevent fractures in postmenopausal females and in males aged 50 years and older. METHODS: This guideline is an update of the 2010 Osteoporosis Canada clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and quality assurance as per Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) quality and reporting standards. Primary care physicians and patient partners were represented at all levels of the guideline committees and groups, and participated throughout the entire process to ensure relevance to target users. The process for managing competing interests was developed before and continued throughout the guideline development, informed by the Guideline International Network principles. We considered benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, resources, equity, acceptability and feasibility when developing recommendations; the strength of each recommendation was assigned according to the GRADE framework. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 25 recommendations and 10 good practice statements are grouped under the sections of exercise, nutrition, fracture risk assessment and treatment initiation, pharmacologic interventions, duration and sequence of therapy, and monitoring. The management of osteoporosis should be guided by the patient's risk of fracture, based on clinical assessment and using a validated fracture risk assessment tool. Exercise, nutrition and pharmacotherapy are key elements of the management strategy for fracture prevention and should be individualized. INTERPRETATION: The aim of this guideline is to empower health care professionals and patients to have meaningful discussions on the importance of skeletal health and fracture risk throughout older adulthood. Identification and appropriate management of skeletal fragility can reduce fractures, and preserve mobility, autonomy and quality of life.

Non-pharmacological management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: Patient perspectives and experiences.

OBJECTIVE: To understand perceptions on rehabilitation after vertebral fracture, non-pharmacological strategies, and virtual care from the perspective of individuals living with vertebral fractures. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted semi-structured interviews online and performed a thematic and content analysis from a post-positivism perspective. PARTICIPANTS: Ten individuals living with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (9F, 1 M, aged 71 ± 8 years). RESULTS: Five themes emerged: pain is the defining limitation of vertebral fracture recovery; delayed diagnosis impacts recovery trajectory; living with fear; being dissatisfied with fracture management; and "getting back into the game of life" using non-pharmacological strategies. CONCLUSION: Participants reported back pain and an inability to perform activities of daily living, affecting psychological and social well-being. Physiotherapy, education, and exercise were considered helpful and important to patients; however, issues with fracture identification and referral limited the use of these options. Participants believed that virtual rehabilitation was a feasible and effective alternative to in-person care, but perceived experience with technology, cost, and individualization of programs as barriers.

Selecting implementation models, theories, and frameworks in which to integrate intersectional approaches.

BACKGROUND: Models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) provide the foundation for a cumulative science of implementation, reflecting a shared, evolving understanding of various facets of implementation. One under-represented aspect in implementation MTFs is how intersecting social factors and systems of power and oppression can shape implementation. There is value in enhancing how MTFs in implementation research and practice account for these intersecting factors. Given the large number of MTFs, we sought to identify exemplar MTFs that represent key implementation phases within which to embed an intersectional perspective. METHODS: We used a five-step process to prioritize MTFs for enhancement with an intersectional lens. We mapped 160 MTFs to three previously prioritized phases of the Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework. Next, 17 implementation researchers/practitioners, MTF experts, and intersectionality experts agreed on criteria for prioritizing MTFs within each KTA phase. The experts used a modified Delphi process to agree on an exemplar MTF for each of the three prioritized KTA framework phases. Finally, we reached consensus on the final MTFs and contacted the original MTF developers to confirm MTF versions and explore additional insights. RESULTS: We agreed on three criteria when prioritizing MTFs: acceptability (mean = 3.20, SD = 0.75), applicability (mean = 3.82, SD = 0.72), and usability (median = 4.00, mean = 3.89, SD = 0.31) of the MTF. The top-rated MTFs were the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care for the 'Identify the problem' phase (mean = 4.57, SD = 2.31), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for the 'Assess barriers/facilitators to knowledge use' phase (mean = 5.79, SD = 1.12), and the Behaviour Change Wheel for the 'Select, tailor, implement interventions' phase (mean = 6.36, SD = 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary team engaged in a rigorous process to reach consensus on MTFs reflecting specific phases of the implementation process and prioritized each to serve as an exemplar in which to embed intersectional approaches. The resulting MTFs correspond with specific phases of the KTA framework, which itself may be useful for those seeking particular MTFs for particular KTA phases. This approach also provides a template for how other implementation MTFs could be similarly considered in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: osf.io/qgh64.

Development and usability testing of tools to facilitate incorporating intersectionality in knowledge translation.

BACKGROUND: The field of knowledge translation (KT) has been criticized for neglecting contextual and social considerations that influence health equity. Intersectionality, a concept introduced by Black feminist scholars, emphasizes how human experience is shaped by combinations of social factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender) embedded in systemic power structures. Its use has the potential to advance equity considerations in KT. Our objective was to develop and conduct usability testing of tools to support integrating intersectionality in KT through three key phases of KT: identifying the gap; assessing barriers to knowledge use; and selecting, tailoring, and implementing interventions. METHODS: We used an integrated KT approach and assembled an interdisciplinary development committee who drafted tools. We used a mixed methods approach for usability testing with KT intervention developers that included semi-structured interviews and the System Usability Scale (SUS). We calculated an average SUS score for each tool. We coded interview data using the framework method focusing on actionable feedback. The development committee used the feedback to revise tools, which were formatted by a graphic designer. RESULTS: Nine people working in Canada joined the development committee. They drafted an intersectionality primer and one tool that included recommendations, activities, reflection prompts, and resources for each of the three implementation phases. Thirty-one KT intervention developers from three countries participated in usability testing. They suggested the tools to be shorter, contain more visualizations, and use less jargon. Average SUS scores of the draft tools ranged between 60 and 78/100. The development committee revised and shortened all tools, and added two, one-page summary documents. The final toolkit included six documents. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and evaluated tools to help embed intersectionality considerations in KT. These tools go beyond recommending the use of intersectionality to providing practical guidance on how to do this. Future work should develop guidance for enhancing social justice in intersectionality-enhanced KT.

The Effects of Walking or Nordic Walking in Adults 50 Years and Older at Elevated Risk of Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Walking is a common activity among older adults. However, the effects of walking on health-related outcomes in people with low bone mineral density (BMD) are unknown. The authors included randomized controlled trials comparing walking to control in individuals aged ≥50 years with low BMD and at risk of fractures. The authors identified 13 randomized controlled trials: nine multicomponent interventions including walking, one that was walking only, and three Nordic walking trials. Most studies had a high risk of bias. Nordic walking may improve the Timed Up-and-Go values (1.39 s, 95% CI [1.00, 1.78], very low certainty). Multicomponent interventions including walking improved the 6-min walk test (39.37 m, 95% CI [21.83, 56.91], very low certainty) and lumbar spine BMD (0.01 g/cm2, 95% CI [0.00, 0.03], low certainty evidence). The effects on quality of life or femoral neck BMD were not significant. There were insufficient data on fractures, falls, or mortality. Nordic walking may improve physical functioning. The effects on other outcomes are less certain; one may need to combine walking with other exercises to be of benefit.

Exploring Fear of Falling and Exercise Self-Efficacy in Older Women With Vertebral Fractures.

Fear of falling is a common issue among older adults, which decreases quality of life and leads to an avoidance of activities they are still able to do. The goal of this secondary data analysis was to explore the relationship between fear of falling and exercise self-efficacy in 141 women with at least one nontraumatic Genant Grade 2 vertebral fracture. Fear of falling, exercise self-efficacy, history of falling, the number of falls, the use of assisting devices, and pain at rest or during movement were obtained using medical history and health status questionnaires. There was a negative association between fear of falling and exercise self-efficacy (pseudo R2 = .253; p = .004), which persisted when the analysis was adjusted for history and number of falls, use of assistive devices, and pain at rest (pseudo R2 = .329; p < .0001) or during movement (pseudo R2 = .321; p < .0001). Fear of falling may be negatively associated with exercise self-efficacy in older women with vertebral fracture.

Applying an intersectionality lens to the theoretical domains framework: a tool for thinking about how intersecting social identities and structures of power influence behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. METHODS: An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. RESULTS: Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture.

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity (e.g. pain, reduced quality of life) and mortality. Therapeutic exercise is a non-pharmacological conservative treatment that is often recommended for patients with vertebral fractures to reduce pain and restore functional movement. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of exercise intervention of four weeks or greater (alone or as part of a physical therapy intervention) versus non-exercise/non-active physical therapy intervention, no intervention or placebo among adults with a history of vertebral fractures on incident fragility fractures of the hip, vertebra or other sites. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate the effects of exercise on the following outcomes: falls, pain, physical performance, health-related quality of life (disease-specific and generic), and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases until November 2017: the Cochrane Library (Issue 11 of 12), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1988), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from 1982), AMED (from 1985), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database, from 1929). Ongoing/recently completed trials were identified by searching the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Conference proceedings were searched via ISI and SCOPUS, and targeted searches of proceedings of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Search terms or MeSH headings included terms such as vertebral fracture AND exercise OR physical therapy. For this update, the search results were limited from 2011 onward. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials comparing exercise or active physical therapy interventions with placebo/non-exercise/non-active physical therapy interventions or no intervention implemented in individuals with a history of vertebral fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data using a pre-tested data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, or third-party adjudication. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias to evaluate each study. Studies were grouped according to duration of follow-up (i.e. a) 4-12 weeks; b) 16-24 weeks; c) 52 weeks); a study could be represented in more than one group depending on the number of follow-up assessments. For dichotomous data, we reported risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For continuous data, we reported mean differences (MD) of the change from baseline and 95% CI. Data were pooled for Timed Up and Go test, self-reported physical function measured by the QUALEFFO-41 physical function subscale score (scale of zero to 100; lower scores indicate better self-reported physical function), and disease-specific quality of life measured by the QUALEFFO-41 total score (scale of zero to 100; lower scores indicate better quality of life) at 12 weeks using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials (n = 749, 68 male participants; two new trials in this review update) were included. Substantial variability across the trials prevented any meaningful pooling of data for most outcomes. Risk of bias across all studies was variable; low risk across most domains in four studies, and unclear/high risk in most domains for five studies. Performance bias and blinding of subjective outcome assessment were almost all high risk of bias.One trial reported no between-group difference in favor of the effect of exercise on incident fragility fractures after 52 weeks (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.71; very low-quality evidence with control: 184 per 1000 and exercise: 100 per 1000, 95% CI 31 to 315; absolute difference: 8%, 95% CI 2 to 30). One trial reported no between-group difference in favor of the effect of exercise on incident falls after 52 weeks (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.10; very low-quality evidence with control: 262 per 1000 and exercise: 277 per 1000; 95% CI 139 to 550; absolute difference: 2%, 95% CI -12 to 29). These findings should be interpreted with caution because of the very serious risk of bias in these studies and the small sample sizes resulting in imprecise estimates.We are uncertain that exercise could improve pain, self-reported physical function, and disease-specific quality of life, because certain studies showed no evidence of clinically important differences for these outcomes. Pooled analyses revealed a small between-group difference in favor of exercise for Timed Up and Go (MD -1.13 seconds, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.42; studies = 2), which did not change following a sensitivity analysis (MD -1.09 seconds, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.40; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Exercise improved QUALEFFO-41 physical function score (MD -2.84 points, 95% CI -5.57 to -0.11; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence) and QUALEFFO-41 total score (MD -3.24 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -0.43; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence), yet it is unlikely that we observed any clinically important differences. Three trials reported four adverse events related to the exercise intervention (costal cartilage fracture, rib fracture, knee pain, irritation to tape, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of exercise on incident fractures, falls or adverse events. Our updated review found moderate-quality evidence that exercise probably improves physical performance, specifically Timed Up and Go test, in individuals with vertebral fracture (downgraded due to study limitations). However, a one-second improvement in Timed Up and Go is not a clinically important improvement. Although individual trials did report benefits for some pain and disease-specific quality of life outcomes, the findings do not represent clinically meaningful improvements and should be interpreted with caution given the very low-quality evidence due to inconsistent findings, study limitations and imprecise estimates. The small number of trials and variability across trials limited our ability to pool outcomes or make conclusions. Evidence regarding the effects of exercise after vertebral fracture in men is scarce. A high-quality randomized trial is needed to inform safety and effectiveness of exercise to lower incidence of fracture and falls and to improve patient-centered outcomes (pain, function) for individuals with vertebral fractures (minimal sample size required is approximately 2500 untreated participants or 4400 participants if taking anti-osteoporosis therapy).

Actualisation 2023 des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour la prise en charge de l'ostéoporose et la prévention des fractures au Canada.

CONTEXTE: Au Canada, plus de 2 millions de personnes vivent avec l'ostéoporose, une maladie qui accroît le risque de fracture, ce qui fait augmenter la morbidité et la mortalité, et entraîne une perte de qualité de vie et d'autonomie. La présente actualisation des lignes directrices vise à accompagner les professionnelles et professionnels de la santé au Canada dans la prestation de soins visant à optimiser la santé osseuse et à prévenir les fractures chez les femmes ménopausées et les hommes de 50 ans et plus. MÉTHODES: Le présent document fournit une actualisation des lignes directrices de pratique clinique de 2010 d'Ostéoporose Canada sur le diagnostic et la prise en charge de l'ostéoporose au pays. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) et effectué l'assurance de la qualité conformément aux normes de qualité et de présentation des rapports de la grille AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Les médecins de premier recours et les patientes et patients partenaires ont été représentés à tous les niveaux des comités et des groupes ayant participé à l'élaboration des lignes directrices, et ont participé à toutes les étapes du processus pour garantir la pertinence des informations pour les futurs utilisateurs et utilisatrices. Le processus de gestion des intérêts concurrents a été entamé avant l'élaboration des lignes directrices et s'est poursuivi sur toute sa durée, selon les principes du Réseau international en matière de lignes directrices. Dans la formulation des recommandations, nous avons tenu compte des avantages et des risques, des valeurs et préférences de la patientèle, des ressources, de l'équité, de l'acceptabilité et de la faisabilité; la force de chacune des recommandations a été déterminée en fonction du cadre GRADE. RECOMMANDATIONS: Les 25 recommandations et les 10 énoncés de bonne pratique sont répartis en sections : activité physique, alimentation, évaluation du risque de fracture, instauration du traitement, interventions pharmacologiques, durée et séquence du traitement, et monitorage. La prise en charge de l'ostéoporose devrait se fonder sur le risque de fracture, établi au moyen d'une évaluation clinique réalisée avec un outil d'évaluation du risque de fracture validé. L'activité physique, l'alimentation et la pharmacothérapie sont des éléments essentiels à la stratégie de prévention des fractures, qui devraient être personnalisés. INTERPRÉTATION: Les présentes lignes directrices ont pour but d'outiller les professionnelles et professionnels de la santé et la patientèle afin qu'ensemble ils puissent parler de l'importance de la santé osseuse et du risque de fracture tout au long de la vie adulte avancée. La détection et la prise en charge efficace de la fragilité osseuse peuvent contribuer à réduire les fractures et à préserver la mobilité, l'autonomie et la qualité de vie.

The effect of exercise on mental health and health-related quality of life in individuals with multiple sclerosis: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large body of evidence has tested the effect of exercise interventions on mental health and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of exercise interventions on mental health and HRQoL in PwMS. METHODS: We searched four databases up to April 2023, and included randomized controlled trials that: 1) involved PwMS ≥18 years old; 2) delivered an exercise intervention; 3) measured subjective well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being, or HRQoL as outcomes. We reported standardized differences in means (d) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), for continuous outcomes and an incidence rate ratio (IRR) with a 95 % CI for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies (n = 2,057 participants) were included. Exercise improved overall well-being (d = 0.78; 95 % CI 0.483, 1.077; moderate certainty evidence), subjective well-being (d = 0.666; 95 % CI 0.405, 0.928; moderate certainty evidence), social well-being (d = 1.046; 95 % CI 0.569, 1.523; low certainty evidence), and HRQoL (d = 0.568; 95 % CI 0.396, 0.74; moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Exercise interventions can improve well-being and HRQoL in PwMS. Future studies should focus on PwMS ≥ 65 years or with higher level of impairments.

Bracing and taping interventions for individuals with vertebral fragility fractures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with GRADE assessment.

This systematic review analyzes the effects of bracing and taping after osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Spinal orthose may have positive effects on pain, but the evidence is of very low certainty. Clinical judgment is recommended when prescribing spinal orthoses. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of bracing and taping interventions on pain, physical functioning, health-related quality of life, back extensor strength, kyphosis curvature, and adverse events in individuals with vertebral fragility fractures. METHODS: Four databases were searched from inception up to January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials testing the effect of bracing or taping interventions compared with a non-intervention control in adults ≥ 45 years with vertebral fragility fractures. Narrative syntheses were presented for all the outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: Three studies were included. Soft bracing interventions exhibited inconsistent effects on pain. One study showed no difference between groups, and another study should a decrease in pain in the soft bracing group compared to the control group. Rigid bracing interventions did not have a significant change in pain between the control and intervention groups. One study demonstrated a decrease in pain at rest (VAS: - 10.8 ± 19.3) and during movement (VAS: - 20.9 ± 29.8) after a taping intervention. The other outcomes were not consistent across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal orthoses may improve pain in people with vertebral fractures; however, we cannot draw definitive conclusions on the efficacy or harms of bracing or taping due to the very low certainty evidence and the small number of studies. Effects on other outcomes are uncertain.

The use of alkaline phosphatase as a bone turnover marker after spinal cord injury: A scoping review of human and animal studies.

BACKGROUND: Serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is measured as an indicator of bone or liver disease. Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (B-ALP) is an isoform of ALP found in the bone tissue which can predict fractures and heterotopic ossification. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to explore the current use of ALP and B-ALP in studies using humans or animal models of SCI, and to identify ways to advance future research using ALP and B-ALP as a bone marker after SCI. RESULTS: HUMAN STUDIES: 42 studies were included. The evidence regarding changes or differences in ALP levels in individuals with SCI compared to controls is conflicting. For example, a negative correlation between B-ALP and total femur BMD was observed in only one of three studies examining the association. B-ALP seemed to increase after administration of teriparatide, and to decrease after treatment with denosumab. The effects of exercise on ALP and B-ALP levels are heterogeneous and depend on the type of exercise performed. ANIMAL STUDIES: 11 studies were included. There is uncertainty regarding the response of ALP or B-ALP levels after SCI; levels increased after some interventions, including vibration protocols, curcumin supplementation, cycles in electromagnetic field or hyperbaric chamber. Calcitonin or bisphosphonate administration did not affect ALP levels. CONCLUSION: Researchers are encouraged to measure the bone-specific isoform of ALP rather than total ALP in future studies in humans of animal models of SCI.

Non-pharmacological management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: health-care professional perspectives and experiences.

PURPOSE: To understand experiences and perceptions on non-pharmacological treatment of vertebral fractures and virtual-care from the perspective of care professionals' (HCPs). DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 HCPs within Canada (7 F, 6 M, aged 46 ± 12 years) and performed a thematic and content analysis from a post-positivism perspective. RESULTS: Two themes were identified: acuity matters when selecting appropriate interventions; and roadblocks to receiving non-pharmacological interventions. We found that treatment options were dependent on the acuity/stability of fracture and were individualized accordingly. Pain medication was perceived as important, but non-pharmacological strategies were also considered helpful in supporting recovery. Participants discussed barriers related to the timely identification of fracture, referral to physiotherapy, and lack of knowledge among HCPs on how to manage osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. HCPs reported positive use of virtual-care, but had concerns related to patient access, cost, and comprehensive assessments. CONCLUSION: HCPs used and perceived non-pharmacological interventions as helpful and selected specific treatments based on the recency of fracture and patient symptoms. HCPs' also believed that virtual-care that included an educational component, an assessment by a physiotherapist, and an exercise group was a feasible alternative, but concerns exist and may require further evaluation.Implications for RehabilitationNon-pharmacological strategies in combination with pain medication may be a more effective strategy to support recovery than pain medication alone but should be informed by fracture acuity and patient symptoms.To improve access to physiotherapy and other non-pharmacological treatment options during the acute or chronic management of vertebral fractures, it may be worthwhile to explore the effectiveness and feasibility of virtual-care.

Development, Acceptability, and Usability of a Virtual Intervention for Vertebral Fractures.

OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to develop a virtual intervention for vertebral fractures (VIVA) to implement the international recommendations for the nonpharmacological management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and to test its acceptability and usability. METHODS: VIVA was developed in accordance with integrated knowledge translation principles and was informed by the Behavioral Change Wheel, the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the affordability, practicability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, acceptability, side effects/safety, and equity (APEASE) criteria. The development of the prototype of VIVA involved 3 steps: understanding target behaviors, identifying intervention options, and identifying content and implementation options. The VIVA prototype was delivered to 9 participants to assess its acceptability and usability. RESULTS: VIVA includes 7 1-on-1 virtual sessions delivered by a physical therapist over 5 weeks. Each session lasts 45 minutes and is divided in 3 parts: education, training, and behavioral support/goal setting. Four main themes emerged from the acceptability evaluation: perceived improvements in pain, increased self-confidence, satisfaction with 1-on-1 sessions and resources, and ease of use. All of the participants believed that VIVA was very useful and were very satisfied with the 1-on-1 sessions. Four participants found the information received very easy to practice, 4 found it easy to practice, and 1 found it somewhat difficult to practice. Five participants were satisfied with the supporting resources, and 4 were very satisfied. Potential for statistically significant improvements was observed in participants' ability to make concrete plans about when, how, where, and how often to exercise. CONCLUSION: VIVA was acceptable and usable to the participants, who perceived improvements in pain and self-confidence. IMPACT: The virtual implementation of the recommendations for the nonpharmacological management of vertebral fractures showed high acceptability and usability. Future trials will implement the recommendations on a larger scale to evaluate their effectiveness.

Exercise and physical activity in individuals at risk of fracture.

This is a review of evidence and practical tips on exercise for individuals with osteoporosis, including individuals with hip and vertebral fractures. Balance and functional training, with or without strength training, can prevent falls. Several types of exercise can improve outcomes that are important to patients, such as physical functioning or quality of life. Individuals with osteoporosis should prioritize balance, functional and resistance training ≥ twice weekly, where exercises, volume, intensity, and progression are aligned with the patient's goals and abilities. Patients who want to participate in other activities (e.g., walking, impact exercise, yoga, Pilates) can do them in addition to, but not instead of, balance and functional or strength training, if they can be done safely or modified. Avoid generic advice like "Don't bend or twist", which is difficult or impossible to operationalize, and may create fear and activity avoidance. Instead, be specific about the types of activities to avoid or modify, and provide tips on how to make daily activities safer, or signpost to resources from national osteoporosis societies. For example, not all bending or twisting is bad; it is activities that involve rapid, repetitive, sustained, weighted, or end range of motion twisting or flexion of the spine that may need to be modified, especially in individuals at high risk of fracture.

Exploring the Association between Pain and Fracture Characteristics in Women with Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the association between pain and the number, severity, and location of fractures in women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Method: We used an 11-point numeric pain rating scale to assess pain during movement in the preceding week and lateral spinal radiographs to confirm number, location, and severity of vertebral fractures. In model 1, we assessed the association between pain during movement and the number, severity, and location of fractures. We adjusted model 2 for pain medication use and age. Results: The mean age of participants was 76.4 (SD 6.9) years. We found no statistically significant associations between pain and fracture number (estimated ß = 0.23, 95% CI: -0.27, 0.68), fracture severity (estimated ß = -0.46, 95% CI: -1.38, 0.49), or fracture location at T4-T8 (estimated ß = 0.06, 95% CI: -1.26, 1.34), T9-L1 (estimated ß = 0.35, 95% CI: -1.17, 1.74), or L2-L4 (estimated ß = 0.40, 95% CI: -1.01, 1.75). Age and pain medication use were not significantly associated with pain. Model 1 accounted for 4.7% and model 2 for 7.2% of the variance in self-reported pain. Conclusion: The number, location, and severity of fractures do not appear to be the primary explanation for pain in women with vertebral fractures. Clinicians must consider other factors contributing to pain.

Objectif : estimer le lien entre la douleur et le nombre, la gravité et le foyer des fractures chez les femmes atteintes de fractures vertébrales ostéoporotiques. Méthodologie : utilisation d'une échelle d'évaluation numérique de la douleur en 11 points pour établir la douleur pendant le mouvement au cours de la semaine précédente et de radiographies vertébrales latérales pour confirmer le nombre, le foyer et la gravité des fractures vertébrales. Dans le modèle 1, les chercheurs ont évalué l'association entre la douleur pendant le mouvement et le nombre, la gravité et le foyer des fractures. Ils ont rajusté le modèle 2 pour tenir compte de la médication contre la douleur et de l'âge. Résultats : les participants avaient un âge moyen de 76,4 ans (ÉT 6,9). Les chercheurs n'ont pas trouvé d'associations importantes entre la douleur et le nombre de fractures (ß estimatif = 0,23, IC à 95 % : ­0,27, 0,68), la gravité des fractures (ß estimatif = ­0,46, IC à 95 % : ­1,38, 0,49) ou le foyer des fractures aux vertèbres T4 à T8 (ß estimatif = 0,06, IC à 95 % : ­1,26, 1,34), aux vertèbres T9 à L1 (b estimatif = 0,35, IC à 95 % : ­1,17, 1,74) ou aux vertèbres L2 à L4 (ß estimatif = 0,40, IC à 95 % : ­1,01, 1,75). L'âge et l'utilisation d'analgésiques n'étaient pas associés à la douleur de manière significative. Le modèle 1 représentait 4,7 % et le modèle 2, 7,2 % des écarts en matière de douleur autodéclarée. Conclusion : Le nombre, le foyer et la gravité des fractures ne semblaient pas être l'explication primaire de la douleur chez les femmes atteintes de fractures vertébrales. Les cliniciens doivent envisager d'autres facteurs qui contribuent à la douleur.