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.

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.

Exercise for improving age-related hyperkyphosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment.

We reviewed exercise trials in men and women ≥ 45 years with hyperkyphosis at the baseline and performed meta-analyses for kyphosis and health-related outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of exercise interventions on kyphosis angle, back extensor muscle strength or endurance, physical functioning, quality of life, pain, falls, and adverse events in adults 45 years or older with hyperkyphosis. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched to May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT, and pre-post intervention studies that had at least one group with a mean kyphosis angle of at least 40° at the baseline were included. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. Exercise or physical therapy improved kyphosis outcomes (SMD - 0.31; 95% confidence intervals [CI] - 0.46, - 0.16; moderate certainty evidence), back extensor muscle strength (MD 10.51 N; 95% CI 6.65, 14.38; very low certainty evidence), and endurance (MD 9.76 s; 95% CI 6.40, 13.13; low certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (SMD 0.21; 95% CI 0.06, 0.37; moderate certainty of evidence), general pain (MD - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.39, - 0.13; low certainty of evidence), and performance on the timed up and go (TUG) test (MD - 0.28 s; 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08; very low certainty of evidence). The effects on the rate of falls (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.64, 2.05; low certainty evidence) or minor adverse events (IRR 1.29; 95% CI 0.95, 1.74; low certainty evidence) are uncertain. No serious adverse events were reported in the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting hyperkyphosis may improve kyphosis outcomes in adults with hyperkyphosis.

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.