Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health interventions. However, no study has evaluated the findings of cost-effectiveness of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with MSDs. METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, AMED, CIHAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Centre for Review and Dissemination were searched for cost-effectiveness of digital health published between inception and June 2022 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results were presented using a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Using the QHES instrument, we found that the mean score of the overall quality of the included studies was 82.5. Included studies were on nonspecific chronic low back pain (n=4), chronic pain (n=2), knee and hip osteoarthritis (n=3), and fibromyalgia (n=1). The economic perspectives adopted in the included studies were societal (n=4), societal and health care (n=3), and health care (n=3). Of the 10 included studies, 5 (50%) used quality-adjusted life-years as the outcome measures. Except 1 study, all the included studies reported that digital health interventions were cost-effective compared with the control group. In a random effects meta-analysis (n=2), the pooled disability and quality-adjusted life-years were -0.176 (95% CI -0.317 to -0.035; P=.01) and 3.855 (95% CI 2.023 to 5.687; P<.001), respectively. The meta-analysis (n=2) for the costs was in favor of the digital health intervention compared with control: US $417.52 (95% CI -522.01 to -313.03). CONCLUSIONS: Studies indicate that digital health interventions are cost-effective for people with MSDs. Our findings suggest that digital health intervention could help improve access to treatment for patients with MSDs and as a result improve their health outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the use of these interventions for patients with MSDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021253221; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253221.

Global and regional estimates of clinical and economic burden of low back pain in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem, and the leading cause of activity limitation and work absence among people of all ages and socioeconomic strata. This study aimed to analyse the clinical and economic burden of LBP in high income countries (HICs) via systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A literature search was carried out on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, and Scopus databases was from inception to March 15th, 2023. Studies that assessed the clinical and economic burden of LBP in HICs and published in English language were reviewed. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Two reviewers, using a predefined data extraction form, independently extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted for clinical and economic outcomes. Results: The search identified 4,081 potentially relevant articles. Twenty-one studies that met the eligibility criteria were included and reviewed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The included studies were from the regions of America (n = 5); Europe (n = 12), and the Western Pacific (n = 4). The average annual direct and indirect costs estimate per population for LBP ranged from € 2.3 billion to € 2.6 billion; and € 0.24 billion to $8.15 billion, respectively. In the random effects meta-analysis, the pooled annual rate of hospitalization for LBP was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 0.6%-5.7%). The pooled direct costs and total costs of LBP per patients were USD 9,231 (95% confidence interval -7,126.71-25,588.9) and USD 10,143.1 (95% confidence interval 6,083.59-14,202.6), respectively. Discussion: Low back pain led to high clinical and economic burden in HICs that varied significantly across the geographical contexts. The results of our analysis can be used by clinicians, and policymakers to better allocate resources for prevention and management strategies for LBP to improve health outcomes and reduce the substantial burden associated with the condition. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails?, PROSPERO [CRD42020196335].

Clinical and economic burden of low back pain in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability and work absenteeism globally, and it poses significant clinical and economic burden to individuals, health systems and the society. This study aimed to synthesise the clinical and economic burden of LBP in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Embase and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies that examined the clinical and economic burden of LBP in LMICs, published from inception to 10 December 2021. Only studies with clearly stated methodologies and published in English were eligible for review. RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Of these, three of them were clinical burden studies. The mean Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) score of the included studies was 4, with an average from 3 to 6. The included studies were conducted in Argentina, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Republic of Serbia. The rates of hospitalisation due to LBP ranged between 13.4% and 18.7%. Due to variation of methodological approaches, the reported cost estimates were inconsistent across the studies. A total cost of US$2.2 billion per population and US$1226.25 per patient were reported annually due to LBP. CONCLUSION: This systematic literature review suggests that LBP is associated with significantly high rates of hospitalisation and costs. As LBP is an important threat to the population, health professionals and policymakers are to put in place appropriate programmes to reduce the clinical and economic burden associated with LBP and improve the health outcomes of individuals with this condition in LMICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020196335.

Applying the ICF codes, flag model and C-OAR-SE in the development of return-to-work assessment scale for stroke survivors.

BACKGROUND: The Return-to-Work Assessment Scale (RAS) was developed in 2021 by Ibikunle et al. to assess return-to-work among post-stroke survivors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe how the conceptual (flag model and ICF) and theoretical framework (C-OAR-SE) were used in developing the RAS. METHOD: The development of the RAS consisted of three phases: (i) Initial item generation (ii) Face and content validity (iii) Psychometric testing. With each phase embracing the flag model, international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) and the C-OAR-SE an acronym for the six aspects of the theory: 'C' [construct definition], 'OAR' [object representation, attribute classification, and rater entity identification], and 'SE' [selection of item type and answer scale, as well as, enumeration]. RESULTS: A triangulated approach drawn on three separate theories and models. Phase one was developed by using the flag model which provided the semi-structured open ended questions that materialized into the draft instrument while phases two and three were developed using the ICF and the C-OAR-SE. The scale consists of two sections, A and B. Section A comprises general information about post-stroke survivors, which would not be scored, while section B includes three parts that are important to consider when deciding to return-to-work. CONCLUSION: An instrument called RAS was developed, an excellent, internally consistent, as well as reliable tool that has demonstrated good group and structural validity.

Validation of content and structure of the Return-to-work assessment for post-stroke survivors.

Background: Validation of an instrument consist of three main types: content, criterion and construct. Content validity needs to be determined in order for an instrument to be acceptable for use, validity establishes the fact that an instrument measures exactly what it proposes to measure. The Return-to-work assessment scale (RAS) was developed to measure three aspects of return to work: (Personal factors and/or issues, work issues and contextual factors) in 2021. Objective: To report on the processes followed in establishing the face and content validity of the RAS. Method: Twenty participants took part in our study, they were selected purposively and conveniently from a pool of professionals and post stroke survivors. The Delphi survey technique was used to arrive at consensus and professional opinion on the items included in the RAS. Consensus was sought on the items, domains and subdomains included in the RAS that was used to assess return-to-work after a stroke. Our study was concluded after the third round. Result: One item was remove out of the original 86, three (3) domains made up of eleven (11) subdomains were retained. The RAS had consensus of 100% after three rounds of scrutiny for all items. Conclusion: The RAS was found to be valid, thereby establishing its face and content validity. Clinical implication: The RAS is valid and was recommended for psychometric testing which was the next stage after face and content validity.

Health trends, inequalities and opportunities in South Africa's provinces, 1990-2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 30 years, South Africa has experienced four 'colliding epidemics' of HIV and tuberculosis, chronic illness and mental health, injury and violence, and maternal, neonatal, and child mortality, which have had substantial effects on health and well-being. Using data from the 2019 Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study (GBD 2019), we evaluated national and provincial health trends and progress towards important Sustainable Development Goal targets from 1990 to 2019. METHODS: We analysed GBD 2019 estimates of mortality, non-fatal health loss, summary health measures and risk factor burden, comparing trends over 1990-2007 and 2007-2019. Additionally, we decomposed changes in life expectancy by cause of death and assessed healthcare system performance. RESULTS: Across the nine provinces, inequalities in mortality and life expectancy increased over 1990-2007, largely due to differences in HIV/AIDS, then decreased over 2007-2019. Demographic change and increases in non-communicable diseases nearly doubled the number of years lived with disability between 1990 and 2019. From 1990 to 2019, risk factor burdens generally shifted from communicable and nutritional disease risks to non-communicable disease and injury risks; unsafe sex remained the top risk factor. Despite widespread improvements in healthcare system performance, the greatest gains were generally in economically advantaged provinces. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in HIV/AIDS and related conditions have led to improved health since 2007, though most provinces still lag in key areas. To achieve health targets, provincial governments should enhance health investments and exchange of knowledge, resources and best practices alongside populations that have been left behind, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic.