The impact of specialised treatment of low back pain on health care costs and productivity in a nationwide cohort.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the most common diagnosis responsible for sick leave, long-term disability payments, and early retirements. Studies have suggested that the relatively small proportion of patients referred to a specialist for treatment, either conservative or surgical, accounts for most of the total costs of back pain. However, a complete and long-term picture of the socioeconomic burden associated with these two treatment regimens is lacking. METHODS: From a cohort encompassing the entire population in Denmark (5.8 million inhabitants), we identified patients with LBP referred to specialised treatment, either conservative or surgical, during 2007-2016. According to treatment modality, two different cohorts were constructed. Each patient was matched with ten background population controls based on age, sex, region of residency and time of treatment (month and year). Using extensive, nationwide register data, the healthcare costs and loss of productivity from two years before the first intervention until 2018 was investigated. FINDINGS: A total of 56,694 patients underwent surgical treatment, and 72,915 patients conservative treatment. Both cohorts had a significantly higher baseline cost two years before treatment compared with the background population controls. These measures increased sharply during the year after treatment. Five years after treatment, healthcare costs and loss of productivity remained proportionally similarly increased for the two treatment groups compared to the background population. Multiple surgeries had detrimental effects on long term productivity for the patients, and spouses to patients had marginally increased loss of productivity. INTERPRETATION: The results show that patients referred to specialised treatment of LBP display poor socioeconomic prognosis, regardless of conservative or surgical treatment modality. This development was reinforced in patients undergoing multiple surgeries and was also observed among spouses to the patients. Our findings of substantial loss of productivity across subgroups indicate that measures of successful treatment need to be more nuanced.

Assessment of Neurocognitive Functions in 7-Year-Old Children at Familial High Risk for Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: The Danish High Risk and Resilience Study VIA 7.

Importance: Children at familial high risk of schizophrenia spectrum disorders (FHR-SZ) or bipolar disorder (FHR-BP) exhibit neurocognitive impairments. Large studies of neurocognition in young children at familial high risk at the same age are important to differentiate the pathophysiology and developmental trajectory of these 2 groups. Objective: To characterize neurocognitive functions in 7-year-old children with FHR-SZ or FHR-BP and a control population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite population-based cohort study collected data from January 1, 2013, to January 31, 2016, in the first wave of the Danish High Risk and Resilience Study VIA 7 at 2 university hospital research sites in Copenhagen and Aarhus using Danish registries. Participants (n = 514) included 197 children with FHR-SZ, 118 with FHR-BP, and 199 controls matched with the FHR-SZ group for age, sex, and municipality. Assessors were blinded to risk status. Exposures: Parents with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or neither diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Neurocognitive functions were measured across 23 tests. Four neurocognitive domains were derived by principal component analysis, including processing speed and working memory, verbal functions, executive and visuospatial functions, and declarative memory and attention. Results: A total of 514 children aged 7 years were included in the analysis (46.3% girls), consisting of 197 children with FHR-SZ (46.2% girls), 118 with FHR-BP (46.6% girls), and 199 controls (46.2% girls). Children with FHR-SZ were significantly impaired compared with controls on processing speed and working memory (Cohen d = 0.50; P < .001), executive and visuospatial functions (Cohen d = 0.28; P = .03), and declarative memory and attention (Cohen d = 0.29; P = .02). Compared with children with FHR-BP, children with FHR-SZ performed significantly poorer in processing speed and working memory (Cohen d = 0.40; P = .002), executive and visuospatial functions (Cohen d = 0.35; P = .008), and declarative memory and attention (Cohen d = 0.31; P = .03). Children with FHR-BP and controls did not differ. Conclusions and Relevance: Children with FHR-SZ had widespread neurocognitive impairments, supporting the hypothesis of neurocognitive functions as endophenotypes of schizophrenia. The absence of neurocognitive deficits in children with FHR-BP suggests distinct neurodevelopmental manifestations in these familial high-risk groups at this age. Early detection of children with FHR-SZ and cognitive impairments is warranted to investigate associations of neurocognition with transition to psychosis, add to the knowledge of their developmental pathophysiology, and inform early intervention programs.

Exploring educational disparities in risk of preterm delivery: a comparative study of 12 European birth cohorts.

BACKGROUND: An association between education and preterm delivery has been observed in populations across Europe, but differences in methodology limit comparability. We performed a direct cross-cohort comparison of educational disparities in preterm delivery based on individual-level birth cohort data. METHODS: The study included data from 12 European cohorts from Denmark, England, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The cohorts included between 2434 and 99 655 pregnancies. The association between maternal education and preterm delivery (22-36 completed weeks of gestation) was reported as risk ratios, risk differences, and slope indexes of inequality with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Singleton preterm live delivery proportion varied between 3.7% and 7.5%. There were large variations between the cohorts in the distribution of education and maternal characteristics. Nevertheless, there were similar educational differences in risk of preterm delivery in 8 of the 12 cohorts with slope index of inequality varying between 2.2 [95% CI 1.1, 3.3] and 4.0 [95% CI 1.4, 6.6] excess preterm deliveries per 100 singleton deliveries among the educationally most disadvantaged, and risk ratio between the lowest and highest education category varying from 1.4 [95% CI 1.1, 1.8] to 1.9 [95% CI 1.2, 3.1]. No associations were found in the last four cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Educational disparities in preterm delivery were found all over Europe. Despite differences in the distributions of education and preterm delivery, the results were remarkably similar across the cohorts. For those few cohorts that did not follow the pattern, study and country characteristics did not explain the differences.