The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation.

PURPOSE: Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions. METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps. RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations. METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care. RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources. METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care. CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to develop recommendations for the assessment of spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas with limited resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on the assessment of spine-related complaints. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II criteria. Low risk of bias clinical practice guidelines was used to develop recommendations. In accordance with the mandate of the Global Spinal Care Initiative (GSCI), recommendations were selected that could be applied to medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries by considering the limited access and costs of diagnostic technologies. RESULTS: We screened 3069 citations; 20 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal. We used 13 that had a low risk of bias that targeted neck and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing patients with spine-related complaints in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, we recommend that clinicians should: (1) take a clinical history to determine signs or symptoms suggesting serious pathology (red flags) and psychological factors (yellow flags); (2) perform a physical examination (musculoskeletal and neurological); (3) do not routinely obtain diagnostic imaging; (4) obtain diagnostic imaging and/or laboratory tests when serious pathologies are suspected, and/or presence of progressive neurologic deficits, and/or disabling persistent pain; (5) do not perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies for diagnosis of intervertebral disc disease with radiculopathy; and (6) do not perform discography for the assessment of spinal disorders. This information can be used to inform the GSCI care pathway and model of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a summary of the global burden of low back and neck pain studies.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes relevant findings related to low back and neck pain from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) reports for the purpose of informing the Global Spine Care Initiative. METHODS: We reviewed and summarized back and neck pain burden data from two studies that were published in Lancet in 2016, namely: "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015" and "Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015." RESULTS: In 2015, low back and neck pain were ranked the fourth leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally just after ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory infection {low back and neck pain DALYs [thousands]: 94 941.5 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 67 745.5-128 118.6]}. In 2015, over half a billion people worldwide had low back pain and more than a third of a billion had neck pain of more than 3 months duration. Low back and neck pain are the leading causes of years lived with disability in most countries and age groups. CONCLUSION: Low back and neck pain prevalence and disability have increased markedly over the past 25 years and will likely increase further with population aging. Spinal disorders should be prioritized for research funding given the huge and growing global burden. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a narrative review of psychological and social issues in back pain in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention. RESULTS: Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved. CONCLUSION: Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Management of neck pain and associated disorders: A clinical practice guideline from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of grades I-III neck pain and associated disorders (NAD). METHODS: This guideline is based on recent systematic reviews of high-quality studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel considered the evidence of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, societal and ethical values, and patient experiences (obtained from qualitative research) when formulating recommendations. Target audience includes clinicians; target population is adults with grades I-III NAD <6 months duration. RECOMMENDATION 1: Clinicians should rule out major structural or other pathologies as the cause of NAD. Once major pathology has been ruled out, clinicians should classify NAD as grade I, II, or III. RECOMMENDATION 2: Clinicians should assess prognostic factors for delayed recovery from NAD. RECOMMENDATION 3: Clinicians should educate and reassure patients about the benign and self-limited nature of the typical course of NAD grades I-III and the importance of maintaining activity and movement. Patients with worsening symptoms and those who develop new physical or psychological symptoms should be referred to a physician for further evaluation at any time during their care. RECOMMENDATION 4: For NAD grades I-II ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion exercise, multimodal care (range of motion exercise with manipulation or mobilization), or muscle relaxants. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, cervical collar, electroacupuncture, electrotherapy, or clinic-based heat. RECOMMENDATION 5: For NAD grades I-II >3 months duration, clinicians may consider structured patient education in combination with: range of motion and strengthening exercises, qigong, yoga, multimodal care (exercise with manipulation or mobilization), clinical massage, low-level laser therapy, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer strengthening exercises alone, strain-counterstrain therapy, relaxation massage, relaxation therapy for pain or disability, electrotherapy, shortwave diathermy, clinic-based heat, electroacupuncture, or botulinum toxin injections. RECOMMENDATION 6: For NAD grade III ≤3 months duration, clinicians may consider supervised strengthening exercises in addition to structured patient education. In view of evidence of no effectiveness, clinicians should not offer structured patient education alone, cervical collar, low-level laser therapy, or traction. RECOMMENDATION 7: For NAD grade III >3 months duration, clinicians should not offer a cervical collar. Patients who continue to experience neurological signs and disability more than 3 months after injury should be referred to a physician for investigation and management. RECOMMENDATION 8: Clinicians should reassess the patient at every visit to determine if additional care is necessary, the condition is worsening, or the patient has recovered. Patients reporting significant recovery should be discharged.

Which interventions are cost-effective for the management of whiplash-associated and neck pain-associated disorders? A systematic review of the health economic literature by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and neck pain and associated disorders (NAD) are prevalent conditions that impact society and impose a significant economic burden on health-care systems. Health economic evidence on WAD and NAD interventions has been sparse: only three economic evaluations of interventions for NAD were identified by the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (NPTF). An updated overview is needed to inform health-care policy and guidelines. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of interventions for grades I-III WAD and NAD in children and adults. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of health economic literature, best-evidence synthesis. METHODS: We systematically searched CINAHL, the Cochrane economic databases (Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), EconLit, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Tufts CEA Registry from 2000 to 2015 for economic evaluations of WAD and NAD interventions. We appraised relevant evaluations using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Criteria for Economic Evaluations. We extracted data, including mean costs (standardized to 2013 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), from studies with adequate methodological quality. We recalculated cost-effectiveness statistics based on the standardized currency using a willingness-to-pay of CAD $50,000 per additional QALY. Funding was provided by the Ministry of Finance. RESULTS: Our search identified 1,616 citations. Six studies fulfilled our selection criteria, including three studies previously reviewed by the NPTF. Structured education appears cost-effective for adults with WAD. For adults with NAD, acupuncture added to routine medical care; manual therapy; multimodal care that includes manual therapy; advice and exercise; and psychological care using cognitive-behavioral therapy appear cost-effective. In contrast, adding manual therapy or diathermy to advice and exercise; multimodal care by a physiotherapist or physician; and behavioral-graded activity do not appear cost-effective for adults with NAD. CONCLUSIONS: Our review adds to the findings of the NPTF. Recent evidence suggests that structured education is cost-effective for WAD, whereas advice and exercise and multimodal care that include manual therapy are cost-effective for NAD. Obtaining more robust health economic evidence for non-invasive interventions for WAD and NAD in children and adults remains an essential research priority.

The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Interventions for Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of noninvasive interventions for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central register from 1990 to 2014 for effectiveness studies and the Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Database, EconLit, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Register from 1990 to 2014 for cost-effectiveness studies. Random pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Evidence from eligible studies was synthesized using best-evidence synthesis methodology. RESULTS: Our search for effectiveness studies yielded 16,995 citations; 31 were relevant and 7 randomized controlled trials (published in 8 articles) had a low risk of bias. We found no relevant cost-effectiveness studies. The evidence suggests that for persistent TMD: (1) cognitive-behavioral therapy and self-care management lead to similar improvements in pain and disability but cognitive-behavioral therapy is more effective for activity interference and depressive symptoms; (2) cognitive-behavioral therapy combined with usual treatment provides short-term benefits in pain and ability to control pain compared with usual treatment alone; (3) intraoral myofascial therapy may reduce pain and improve jaw opening; and (4) structured self-care management may be more effective than usual treatment. The evidence suggests that occlusal devices may not be effective in reducing pain and improving motion for TMD of variable duration. Evidence on the effectiveness of biofeedback is inconclusive. DISCUSSION: The available evidence suggests that cognitive-behavioral therapy, intraoral myofascial therapy, and self-care management are therapeutic options for persistent TMD.

Bacteriological testing of private well water: a trends and guidelines assessment using five years of submissions data from southeastern Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: Rural populations are at an elevated risk of gastrointestinal illness, as they are dependent on private groundwater sources, and water quality remains the responsibility of the owner. Previous research suggests that only a minority of well water owners test their wells for bacteriological contamination. The aim of this study was to use testing records, in conjunction with current provincial guidelines, to assess submission rates and temporal trends in southeastern Ontario. METHODS: Using five years of data (2008-2012) from the Public Health Ontario Laboratory in Kingston, Ontario, submissions of well water samples from unique properties (identified through geocoding) were descriptively analyzed. Temporal trends in guideline compliance were tested using a Cochran Armitage test. Finally, correlations between time and submission numbers were investigated using a 10-year provincial dataset to identify long-term temporal trends. RESULTS: There were 107,547 submissions in the five years studied, 84% of which were geocoded, culminating in 30,687 unique properties. Although 11%-12% of owners met the guidelines in any given year, only 0.3% met them every year in the five-year study. Statistically significant decreases were found temporally both in the number of properties that met current guidelines and in all samples tested. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use submission records, rather than surveys, to definitively demonstrate that private well water submission guidelines are not being met in Ontario. However, there are no consistent guidelines across the country or continent, and limited supporting scientific literature is available. Significant research is required to develop evidence-based policies.