Prevalence of Unmet Rehabilitation Needs Among Canadians Living With Long-term Conditions or Disabilities During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the prevalence of unmet rehabilitation needs among a sample of Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Individuals residing in Canada during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities, 15 years or older living in 1 of the 10 provinces or 3 territories (n=13,487). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We defined unmet rehabilitation needs as those who reported needing rehabilitation (ie, physiotherapy/massage therapy/chiropractic, speech, or occupational therapy, counseling services, support groups) but did not receive it because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We calculated the national, age, gender, and province/territory-specific prevalence and 95% confidence interval of unmet rehabilitation needs. RESULTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the prevalence of unmet rehabilitation needs among Canadians with long-term conditions or disabilities was 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 48.3, 50.3]). The age-specific prevalence was higher among individuals 15-49 years old (55.6%; 95% CI [54.2, 57.1]) than those 50 years and older (46.0%; 95% CI [44.5, 47.4]). Females (53.7%; 95% CI [52.6, 54.9]) had higher unmet needs than males (44.1%; 95% CI [42.3, 45.9]). Unmet rehabilitation needs varied across provinces and territories. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, almost 50% of Canadians living with long-term conditions or disabilities had unmet rehabilitation needs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests that a significant gap between the needs for and delivery of rehabilitation care existed during the early phase of the pandemic.

Palliative care for people who use drugs during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics: A scoping review on access, policies, and programs and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: People who use drugs with life-limiting illnesses experience substantial barriers to accessing palliative care. Demand for palliative care is expected to increase during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. Understanding how epidemics and pandemics affect palliative care for people who use drugs is important from a service delivery perspective and for reducing population health inequities. AIM: To explore what is known about communicable disease epidemics and pandemics, palliative care, and people who use drugs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched six bibliographic databases from inception to April 2021 as well as the grey literature. We included English and French records about palliative care access, programs, and policies and guidelines for people ⩾18 years old who use drugs during communicable disease epidemics and pandemics. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in our analysis. We identified limited knowledge about palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics other than HIV/AIDS. Through our thematic synthesis of the records, we generated the following themes: enablers and barriers to access, organizational barriers, structural inequity, access to opioids and other psychoactive substances, and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the need for further research about how best to provide palliative care for people who use drugs during epidemics and pandemics. We suggest four ways that health systems can be better prepared to help alleviate the structural barriers that limit access as well as support the provision of high-quality palliative care during future epidemics and pandemics.

Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological interventions are the most used treatment for low back pain (LBP). Use of evidence from systematic reviews of the effects of pharmacological interventions for LBP published in the Cochrane Library, is limited by lack of a comprehensive overview. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched from inception to 3 June 2021, to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated systemic pharmacological interventions for adults with non-specific LBP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools. The review focused on placebo comparisons and the main outcomes were pain intensity, function, and safety. MAIN RESULTS: Seven Cochrane Reviews that included 103 studies (22,238 participants) were included. There is high confidence in the findings of five reviews, moderate confidence in one, and low confidence in the findings of another. The reviews reported data on six medicines or medicine classes: paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), muscle relaxants, benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants. Three reviews included participants with acute or sub-acute LBP and five reviews included participants with chronic LBP. Acute LBP Paracetamol There was high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD 0.49 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97), reducing disability (MD 0.05 on a 0 to 24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -0.50 to 0.60), and increasing the risk of adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.33). NSAIDs There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -7.29 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.98 to -3.61), high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for reducing disability (MD -2.02 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -2.89 to -1.15), and very low-certainty evidence for no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0. 63 to 1.18). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring muscle relaxants compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76), and higher chance of improving physical function (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77), and increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1. 14 to 1.98). Opioids None of the included Cochrane Reviews aimed to identify evidence for acute LBP. Antidepressants No evidence was identified by the included reviews for acute LBP. Chronic LBP Paracetamol No evidence was identified by the included reviews for chronic LBP. NSAIDs There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring NSAIDs compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (MD -6.97 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -10.74 to -3.19), reducing disability (MD -0.85 on a 0-24 scale (higher scores indicate worse disability), 95% CI -1.30 to -0.40), and no evidence of an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.17), all at intermediate-term follow-up (> 3 months and ≤ 12 months postintervention). Muscle relaxants and benzodiazepines There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring benzodiazepines compared to placebo for a higher chance of pain relief (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93), and low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between muscle relaxants and placebo in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.57). Opioids There was high-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tapentadol compared to placebo at reducing pain intensity (MD -8.00 on a 0 to 100 scale (higher scores indicate worse pain), 95% CI -1.22 to -0.38), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.33), low-certainty evidence for a medium between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.44) and very low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.26). There was moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring strong opioids compared to placebo for reducing disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.15), moderate-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring tramadol for reducing disability (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07), and low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference favouring buprenorphine for reducing disability (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.25). There was low-certainty evidence for a small between-group difference for an increased risk of adverse events for opioids (all types) compared to placebo; nausea (RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14), headaches (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05), constipation (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), and dizziness (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.11). Antidepressants There was low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference for antidepressants (all types) compared to placebo for reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.17) and reducing disability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.29). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high- or moderate-certainty evidence that any investigated pharmacological intervention provided a large or medium effect on pain intensity for acute or chronic LBP compared to placebo. For acute LBP, we found moderate-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and muscle relaxants may provide a small effect on pain, and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between paracetamol and placebo. For safety, we found very low- and high-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference with NSAIDs and paracetamol compared to placebo for the risk of adverse events, and moderate-certainty evidence that muscle relaxants may increase the risk of adverse events. For chronic LBP, we found low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs and very low- to high-certainty evidence that opioids may provide a small effect on pain. For safety, we found low-certainty evidence for no evidence of difference between NSAIDs and placebo for the risk of adverse events, and low-certainty evidence that opioids may increase the risk of adverse events.

Reducing Opioid Use for Chronic Pain With a Group-Based Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Opioid use for chronic nonmalignant pain can be harmful. Objective: To test whether a multicomponent, group-based, self-management intervention reduced opioid use and improved pain-related disability compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicentered, randomized clinical trial of 608 adults taking strong opioids (buprenorphine, dipipanone, morphine, diamorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, papaveretum, pentazocine, pethidine, tapentadol, and tramadol) to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. The study was conducted in 191 primary care centers in England between May 17, 2017, and January 30, 2019. Final follow-up occurred March 18, 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to either usual care or 3-day-long group sessions that emphasized skill-based learning and education, supplemented by 1-on-1 support delivered by a nurse and lay person for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Short Form 8a (PROMIS-PI-SF-8a) score (T-score range, 40.7-77; 77 indicates worst pain interference; minimal clinically important difference, 3.5) and the proportion of participants who discontinued opioids at 12 months, measured by self-report. Results: Of 608 participants randomized (mean age, 61 years; 362 female [60%]; median daily morphine equivalent dose, 46 mg [IQR, 25 to 79]), 440 (72%) completed 12-month follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in PROMIS-PI-SF-8a scores between the 2 groups at 12-month follow-up (-4.1 in the intervention and -3.17 in the usual care groups; between-group difference: mean difference, -0.52 [95% CI, -1.94 to 0.89]; P = .15). At 12 months, opioid discontinuation occurred in 65 of 225 participants (29%) in the intervention group and 15 of 208 participants (7%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 5.55 [95% CI, 2.80 to 10.99]; absolute difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 14.8% to 28.6%]; P < .001). Serious adverse events occurred in 8% (25/305) of the participants in the intervention group and 5% (16/303) of the participants in the usual care group. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (2% in the intervention group and 0% in the usual care group) and locomotor/musculoskeletal (2% in the intervention group and 1% in the usual care group). Four people (1%) in the intervention group received additional medical care for possible or probable symptoms of opioid withdrawal (shortness of breath, hot flushes, fever and pain, small intestinal bleed, and an overdose suicide attempt). Conclusions and Relevance: In people with chronic pain due to nonmalignant causes, compared with usual care, a group-based educational intervention that included group and individual support and skill-based learning significantly reduced patient-reported use of opioids, but had no effect on perceived pain interference with daily life activities. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN49470934.

Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical‒Population Health Interface.

Clinically focused interventions for people living with pain, such as health professional education, clinical decision support systems, prescription drug monitoring programs, and multidisciplinary care to support opioid tapering, have all been promoted as important solutions to the North American opioid crisis. Yet none have so far delivered substantive beneficial opioid-related population health outcomes. In fact, while total opioid prescribing has leveled off or reduced in many jurisdictions, population-level harms from opioids have continued to increase dramatically. We attribute this failure partly to a poor recognition of the epistemic and ethical complexities at the interface of clinical and population health. We draw on a framework of knowledge networks in wicked problems to identify 3 strategies to help navigate these complexities: (1) designing and evaluating clinically focused interventions as complex interventions, (2) reformulating evidence to make population health dynamics apparent, and (3) appealing to the inseparability of facts and values to support decision-making in uncertainty. We advocate that applying these strategies will better equip clinically focused interventions as complements to structural and public health interventions to achieve the desired beneficial population health effects. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56-S65. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306500).

Cannabis use and workplace cannabis availability, perceptions and policies among Canadian workers: a comparison before and after the legalisation of non-medical cannabis.

OBJECTIVES: Little data exist examining the impact of non-medical (recreational) cannabis legalisation among a working population. The objective was to compare cannabis use patterns and workplace risk perceptions, cannabis availability and workplace use policies before and almost 1 year after legalisation in Canadian workers. METHODS: Two overlapping cross-sectional samples of Canadian workers were surveyed 4 months before legalisation (time 1 (T1), n=2011) and 9-11 months after legalisation (time 2 (T2), n=4032), gathering information on cannabis use (overall and workplace use), workers' perceptions regarding risks of workplace use, availability of cannabis at work and awareness of workplace substance use policies. The marginal distributions of these variables at T1 and T2 were compared, adjusting for sociodemographic, work and health and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Cannabis use status changed from prelegalisation to postlegalisation (p<0.0001), with fewer respondents reporting former use (ie, more than 1 year ago; 40.4% at T1, 33.0% at T2) and a greater proportion of workers reporting past-year use (30.4% at T1, 39.3% at T2). Never use remained stable (29.2% at T1, 27.6% at T2). Workplace cannabis use also remained stable (9.4% at T1, 9.1% at T2; p=0.4580). At T1, 62.7% of respondents reported being aware of their workplace having a substance use policy, increasing to 79.0% at T2 (p<0.0001). Small magnitude changes occurred in perceptions of risk and workplace availability. CONCLUSIONS: Results point to a lack of substantive changes in the short-term from prelegalisation to postlegalisation. Longer-term data among workers are needed given the evolving nature of this legislative policy.

Primary Care Physicians' Learning Needs in Returning Ill or Injured Workers to Work. A Scoping Review.

Primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to assist ill and injured workers to stay-at-work or to return-to-work. Purpose The purpose of this scoping review is to identify primary care physicians' learning needs in returning ill or injured workers to work and to identify gaps to guide future research. Methods We used established methodologies developed by Arksey and O'Malley, Cochrane and adapted by the Systematic Review Program at the Institute for Work & Health. We used Distiller SR©, an online systematic review software to screen for relevance and perform data extraction. We followed the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews checklist for reporting. Results We screened 2106 titles and abstracts, 375 full-text papers for relevance and included 44 studies for qualitative synthesis. The first learning need was related to administrative tasks. These included (1) appropriate record-keeping, (2) time management to review occupational information, (3) communication skills to provide clear, sufficient and relevant factual information, (4) coordination of services between different stakeholders, and (5) collaboration within teams and between different professions. The second learning need was related to attitudes and beliefs and included intrinsic biases, self-confidence, role clarity and culture of blaming the patient. The third learning need was related to specific knowledge and included work capacity assessments and needs for sick leave, environmental exposures, disclosure of information, prognosis of certain conditions and care to certain groups such as adolescents and pregnant workers. The fourth learning need was related to awareness of services and tools. Conclusions There are many opportunities to improve medical education for physicians in training or in continuing medical education to improve care for workers with an illness or injury that affect their work.

Assessment tools for problematic opioid use in palliative care: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Screening for problematic opioid use is increasingly recommended in patients receiving palliative care. AIM: To identify tools used to assess for the presence or risk of problematic opioid use in palliative care. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (inception to January 31, 2020), reference lists, and grey literature were searched to find primary studies reporting on adults receiving palliative care and prescription opioids to manage symptoms from advanced cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, or end-stage organ diseases; and included tools to assess for problematic opioid use. There were no restrictions based on study design, location, or language. RESULTS: We identified 42 observational studies (total 14,431 participants) published between 2009 and 2020 that used questionnaires (n = 32) and urine drug tests (n = 21) to assess for problematic opioid use in palliative care, primarily in US (n = 38) and outpatient palliative care settings (n = 36). The questionnaires were Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE, n = 8), CAGE-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID, n = 6), Opioid Risk Tool (n = 9), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP; n = 3), SOAPP-Revised (n = 2), and SOAPP-Short Form (n = 5). Only two studies' primary objectives were to evaluate a questionnaire's psychometric properties in patients receiving palliative care. There was wide variation in how urine drug tests were incorporated into palliative care; frequency of abnormal urine drug test results ranged from 8.6% to 70%. CONCLUSION: Given the dearth of studies using tools developed or validated specifically for patients receiving palliative care, further research is needed to inform clinical practice and policy regarding problematic opioid use in palliative care.

Promoting an interprofessional approach to chronic pain management in primary care using Project ECHO.

Chronic pain is a complex multidimensional condition that requires management with multiple professions' expertise. Healthcare training programs tend to adhere to curricula within their own profession with very few interactions with other groups. Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) Chronic Pain and Opioid Stewardship is a model for interprofessional education, using tele-mentoring, case-base discussions and clinically focused presentations. The goal is to improve competency and confidence in managing complex cases in primary care. This qualitative study engaged twenty healthcare practitioners from multiple professions who had participated in ECHO in focus group discussions about managing patients with chronic pain, about their reasons for and the effect of participating in Project ECHO Ontario Chronic Pain/Opioid Stewardship, and about their perspectives on interprofessional care. The results show that participating in ECHO resulted in personal and professional benefit, and increased understanding about their own roles and limitations, as well as other healthcare professionals' roles. The participants described changes in their attitudes toward patients with chronic pain, and their colleagues from other professions. Non-physician participants were more likely to approach physicians to discuss their assessment and diagnosis as well as prescriptions. The interprofessional nature of the program was seen as positive and contributed to perceived changes in practice collaboration. These results show that healthcare professionals from multiple professions expressed mainly positive views of ECHO's emphasis on interprofessional care, with different professions appreciating different aspects of that approach.

Factors associated with early opioid dispensing compared with NSAID and muscle relaxant dispensing after a work-related low back injury.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this historical cohort study was to determine the claimant and prescriber factors associated with receiving opioids at first postinjury dispense compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) in a sample of workers' compensation claimants with low back pain (LBP) claims between 1998 and 2009 in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Administrative workers' compensation, prescription and healthcare data were linked. The association between claimant factors (sociodemographics, occupation, diagnosis, comorbidities, pre-injury prescriptions and healthcare) and prescriber factors (sex, birth year, specialty) with drug class(es) at first dispense (opioids vs NSAIDs/SMRs) was examined with multilevel multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Increasing days supplied with opioids in the previous year was associated with increased odds of receiving opioids only (1-14 days OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.51 to 1.75; ≥15 days OR 5.12, 95% CI 4.65 to 5.64) and opioids with NSAIDs/SMRs (1-14 days OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.60; ≥15 days OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.12). Other significant claimant factors included: pre-injury dispenses for NSAIDs, SMRs, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and sedative-hypnotics/anxiolytics; International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 9th Revision diagnosis; various pre-existing comorbidities; prior physician visits and hospitalisations; and year of injury, age, sex, health authority and occupation. Prescribers accounted for 25%-36% of the variability in the drug class(es) received, but prescriber sex, specialty and birth year did not explain observed between-prescriber variation. CONCLUSIONS: During this period in the opioid crisis, early postinjury dispensing was multifactorial, with several claimant factors associated with receiving opioids at first prescription. Prescriber variation in drug class choice appears particularly important, but was not explained by basic prescriber characteristics.

Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest that acupuncture can offer an effective alternative therapy. This review is a split from an earlier Cochrane review and it focuses on chronic LBP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acupuncture compared to sham intervention, no treatment, or usual care for chronic nonspecific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two Chinese databases, and two trial registers to 29 August 2019 without restrictions on language or publication status. We also screened reference lists and LBP guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific LBP in adults. We excluded RCTs that investigated LBP with a specific etiology. We included trials comparing acupuncture with sham intervention, no treatment, and usual care. The primary outcomes were pain, back-specific functional status, and quality of life; the secondary outcomes were pain-related disability, global assessment, or adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. We meta-analyzed data that were clinically homogeneous using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, we reported the data qualitatively. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies (37 articles) with 8270 participants. The majority of studies were carried out in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Seven studies (5572 participants) conducted in Germany accounted for 67% of the participants. Sixteen trials compared acupuncture with sham intervention, usual care, or no treatment. Most studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the acupuncturist. A few studies were found to have high risk of detection, attrition, reporting or selection bias. We found low-certainty evidence (seven trials, 1403 participants) that acupuncture may relieve pain in the immediate term (up to seven days) compared to sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -9.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.82 to -4.61, visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-100). The difference did not meet the clinically important threshold of 15 points or 30% relative change. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials (1481 participants) showed that acupuncture was not more effective than sham in improving back-specific function in the immediate term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.06; corresponding to the Hannover Function Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ, 0 to 100, higher values better) change (MD 3.33 points; 95% CI -1.25 to 7.90)). Three trials (1068 participants) yielded low-certainty evidence that acupuncture seemed not to be more effective clinically in the short term for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; corresponding to the physical 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12, 0-100, higher values better) change (MD 2.33 points; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.37)). The reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence to either low to very low were risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. We found moderate-certainty evidence that acupuncture produced greater and clinically important pain relief (MD -20.32, 95% CI -24.50 to -16.14; four trials, 366 participants; (VAS, 0 to 100), and improved back function (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.34; five trials, 2960 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 11.50 points; 95% CI 7.38 to 15.84)) in the immediate term compared to no treatment. The evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. No studies reported on quality of life in the short term or adverse events. Low-certainty evidence (five trials, 1054 participants) suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain (MD -10.26, 95% CI -17.11 to -3.40; not clinically important on 0 to 100 VAS), and improve back-specific function immediately after treatment (SMD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.17; five trials, 1381 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 9.78 points, 95% CI 3.54 to 16.02)) compared to usual care. Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (731 participants) found that acupuncture was more effective in improving physical quality of life (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58) but not mental quality of life in the short term (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.55). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate to low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Low-certainty evidence suggested a similar incidence of adverse events immediately after treatment in the acupuncture and sham intervention groups (four trials, 465 participants) (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01), and the acupuncture and usual care groups (one trial, 74 participants) (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.68). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trial reported adverse events for acupuncture when compared to no treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events in the acupuncture groups were insertion point pain, bruising, hematoma, bleeding, worsening of LBP, and pain other than LBP (pain in leg and shoulder). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that acupuncture may not play a more clinically meaningful role than sham in relieving pain immediately after treatment or in improving quality of life in the short term, and acupuncture possibly did not improve back function compared to sham in the immediate term. However, acupuncture was more effective than no treatment in improving pain and function in the immediate term. Trials with usual care as the control showed acupuncture may not reduce pain clinically, but the therapy may improve function immediately after sessions as well as physical but not mental quality of life in the short term. The evidence was downgraded to moderate to very low-certainty considering most of studies had high risk of bias, inconsistency, and small sample size introducing imprecision. The decision to use acupuncture to treat chronic low back pain might depend on the availability, cost and patient's preferences.

Relationship between early prescription dispensing patterns and work disability in a cohort of low back pain workers' compensation claimants: a historical cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine and compare whether dispensing of prescription opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) within 8 weeks after a work-related low back pain (LBP) injury is associated with work disability. METHODS: A historical cohort study of 55 571 workers' compensation claimants with LBP claims in British Columbia from 1998 to 2009 was conducted using linked compensation, dispensing and healthcare data. Four exposures were constructed to estimate the effect on receipt of benefits and days on benefits 1 year after injury: drug class(es) dispensed, days' supply, strength of opioids dispensed and average daily morphine-equivalent dose. RESULTS: Compared with claimants receiving NSAIDs and/or SMRs, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of days on benefits was 1.09 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.14) for claimants dispensed opioids only and 1.26 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.30) for claimants dispensed opioids with NSAIDs and/or SMRs. Compared with weak opioids only, the IRR for claimants dispensed strong opioids only or strong and weak opioids combined was 1.21 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.30) and 1.29 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.39), respectively. The incident rate of days on benefits associated with each 7-day increase in days supplied of opioids, NSAIDs and SMRs was 10%, 4% and 3%, respectively. Similar results were seen for receipt of benefits, though effect sizes were larger. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest provision of early opioids leads to prolonged work disability compared with NSAIDs and SMRs, though longer supplies of all drug classes are also associated with work disability. Residual confounding likely partially explains the findings. Research is needed that accounts for prescriber, system and workplace factors.

The Added Value of Collecting Information on Pain Experience When Predicting Time on Benefits for Injured Workers with Back Pain.

Objectives Some injured workers with work-related, compensated back pain experience a troubling course in return to work. A prediction tool was developed in an earlier study, using administrative data only. This study explored the added value of worker reported data in identifying those workers with back pain at higher risk of being on benefits for a longer period of time. Methods This was a cohort study of workers with compensated back pain in 2005 in Ontario. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) data was used. As well, we examined the added value of patient-reported prognostic factors obtained from a prospective cohort study. Improvement of model fit was determined by comparing area under the curve (AUC) statistics. The outcome measure was time on benefits during a first workers' compensation claim for back pain. Follow-up was 2 years. Results Among 1442 workers with WSIB data still on full benefits at 4 weeks, 113 were also part of the prospective cohort study. Model fit of an established rule in the smaller dataset of 113 workers was comparable to the fit previously established in the larger dataset. Adding worker rating of pain at baseline improved the rule substantially (AUC = 0.80, 95 % CI 0.68, 0.91 compared to benefit status at 180 days, AUC = 0.88, 95 % CI 0.74, 1.00 compared to benefits status at 360 days). Conclusion Although data routinely collected by workers' compensation boards show some ability to predict prolonged time on benefits, adding information on experienced pain reported by the worker improves the predictive ability of the model from 'fairly good' to 'good'. In this study, a combination of prognostic factors, reported by multiple stakeholders, including the worker, could identify those at high risk of extended duration on disability benefits and in potentially in need of additional support at the individual level.

Massage for low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and costly musculoskeletal problems in modern society. It is experienced by 70% to 80% of adults at some time in their lives. Massage therapy has the potential to minimize pain and speed return to normal function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of massage therapy for people with non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed to August 2014, and the following databases to July 2014: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Index to Chiropractic Literature, and Proquest Dissertation Abstracts. We also checked reference lists. There were no language restrictions used. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials of adults with non-specific LBP classified as acute, sub-acute or chronic. Massage was defined as soft-tissue manipulation using the hands or a mechanical device. We grouped the comparison groups into two types: inactive controls (sham therapy, waiting list, or no treatment), and active controls (manipulation, mobilization, TENS, acupuncture, traction, relaxation, physical therapy, exercises or self-care education). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and followed CBN guidelines. Two independent authors performed article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal. MAIN RESULTS: In total we included 25 trials (3096 participants) in this review update. The majority was funded by not-for-profit organizations. One trial included participants with acute LBP, and the remaining trials included people with sub-acute or chronic LBP (CLBP). In three trials massage was done with a mechanical device, and the remaining trials used only the hands. The most common type of bias in these studies was performance and measurement bias because it is difficult to blind participants, massage therapists and the measuring outcomes. We judged the quality of the evidence to be "low" to "very low", and the main reasons for downgrading the evidence were risk of bias and imprecision. There was no suggestion of publication bias. For acute LBP, massage was found to be better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -1.24, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.64; participants = 51; studies = 1)) in the short-term, but not for function ((SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.06; participants = 51; studies = 1)). For sub-acute and chronic LBP, massage was better than inactive controls for pain ((SMD -0.75, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.60; participants = 761; studies = 7)) and function (SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.39; 725 participants; 6 studies; ) in the short-term, but not in the long-term; however, when compared to active controls, massage was better for pain, both in the short ((SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.13; participants = 964; studies = 12)) and long-term follow-up ((SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.01; participants = 757; studies = 5)), but no differences were found for function (both in the short and long-term). There were no reports of serious adverse events in any of these trials. Increased pain intensity was the most common adverse event reported in 1.5% to 25% of the participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have very little confidence that massage is an effective treatment for LBP. Acute, sub-acute and chronic LBP had improvements in pain outcomes with massage only in the short-term follow-up. Functional improvement was observed in participants with sub-acute and chronic LBP when compared with inactive controls, but only for the short-term follow-up. There were only minor adverse effects with massage.

Predicting time on prolonged benefits for injured workers with acute back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Some workers with work-related compensated back pain (BP) experience a troubling course of disability. Factors associated with delayed recovery among workers with work-related compensated BP were explored. METHODS: This is a cohort study of workers with compensated BP in 2005 in Ontario, Canada. Follow up was 2 years. Data was collected from employers, employees and health-care providers by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). Exclusion criteria were: (1) no-lost-time claims, (2) >30 days between injury and claim filing, (3) <4 weeks benefits duration, and (4) age >65 years. Using proportional hazard models, we examined the prognostic value of information collected in the first 4 weeks after injury. Outcome measures were time on benefits during the first episode and time until recurrence after the first episode. RESULTS: Of 6,657 workers, 1,442 were still on full benefits after 4 weeks. Our final model containing age, physical demands, opioid prescription, union membership, availability of a return-to-work program, employer doubt about work-relatedness of injury, worker's recovery expectations, participation in a rehabilitation program and communication of functional ability was able to identify prolonged claims to a fair degree [area under the curve (AUC) = .79, 95% confidence interval (CI) .74-.84]. A model containing age, sex, physical demands, opioid prescription and communication of functional ability was less successful at predicting time until recurrence (AUC = .61, 95% CI .57, .65). CONCLUSIONS: Factors contained in information currently collected by the WSIB during the first 4 weeks on benefits can predict prolonged claims, but not recurrent claims.

What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To investigate what interventions can improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and ICL databases up to June 2012. Only randomized controlled trials published in English and measuring walking ability were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of the evidence evaluation were performed using methods of the Cochrane Back Review Group. RESULTS: We accepted 18 studies with 1,220 participants. There is very low quality evidence that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol regardless of mode of administration. There is low quality evidence that prostaglandins, and very low quality evidence that gabapentin or methylcobalamin, improves walking distance. There is low and very low quality evidence that physical therapy was no better in improving walking ability compared to no treatment, oral diclofenac plus home exercises, or combined manual therapy and exercise. There is very low quality evidence that epidural injections improve walking distance up to 2 weeks compared to placebo. There is low- and very low-quality evidence that various direct decompression surgical techniques show similar significant improvements in walking ability. There is low quality evidence that direct decompression is no better than non-operative treatment in improving walking ability. There is very low quality evidence that indirect decompression improves walking ability compared to non-operative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence for surgical and non-surgical treatment to improve walking ability is of low and very low quality and thus prohibits recommendations to guide clinical practice.

"Keep trying": a qualitative investigation into what patients with chronic pain gain from Project ECHO.

Objective: The study aims to investigate the patient perspective on the pathway from healthcare practitioners' presentations of their cases at a Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) tele-clinic to the management of those patients' chronic pain. Introduction: Managing patients with chronic and complex pain constitutes a prevalent, stressful challenge in the primary care setting. Primary care physicians typically have received little training in treating such patients and, until recently, have relied heavily on opioid and other pharmaceutical therapies as part of their regimen. Project ECHO Ontario Chronic Pain and Opioid Stewardship is an interprofessional telementoring program connecting pain specialists to primary care practitioners with the aim of supporting them in managing their patients with chronic pain, although the patients concerned do not generally participate in the telementoring sessions. While a number of papers have described the benefits accruing to healthcare professionals through participating in Project ECHO, there has been little exploration concerning patients' perceptions of their care subsequent to case presentation. Methods: Using data from in-depth interviews with 20 patients along with their associated case presentation forms and the recommendations following the presentation, we look at the alignment of patient and practitioner views and inquire about the patient's perceptions of how Project ECHO affects them. Results: Results suggest that the impact on patients is indirect but positive: most respondents express pleasure in contributing to research around chronic pain management, though only two of them identified a direct impact on their own treatment. They also appreciated their practitioner's efforts to bring expert attention to the patient's situation. Conclusions: Patients whose cases are presented to Project ECHO sessions experience positive emotions at being part of the process of research and quality improvement, regardless of changes in their own conditions. This study highlights the importance to patients of their practitioners' commitment to managing their chronic pain.

Cannabis use motives and associations with personal and work characteristics among Canadian workers: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Research on cannabis use motives has focused on youth. Little is known about motives among working adults, including how work may play a role. This study aimed to describe cannabis use motives and their connection to work, and identify the personal and work correlates of work-related motives among a sample of workers. METHODS: A national, cross-sectional sample of Canadian workers were queried about their cannabis use. Workers reporting past-year cannabis use (n = 589) were asked their motives for using cannabis and whether each motive was related to work or helped them manage at work (i.e., work-related). Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations of personal and work characteristics with work-related cannabis use motives (no work-related motives, < 50% of motives work-related, ≥ 50% of motives work-related). RESULTS: Use for relaxation (59.3%), enjoyment (47.2%), social reasons (35.3%), coping (35.1%), medical reasons (30.9%), and sleep (29.9%) were the most common motives. Almost 40% of respondents reported one or more of their cannabis use motives were work-related, with coping (19.9%) and relaxation (16.3%) most commonly reported as work-related. Younger age, poorer general health, greater job stress, having a supervisory role, and hazardous work were associated with increased odds of reporting at least some cannabis use motives to be work-related, while work schedule and greater frequency of alcohol use were associated with reduced odds of motives being primarily work-related. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use motives among workers are diverse and frequently associated with work. Greater attention to the role of work in motivating cannabis use is warranted.

Are we missing the opioid consumption in low- and middle-income countries?

OBJECTIVES: The rise in opioid prescriptions with a parallel increase in opioid use disorders remains a significant challenge in some developed countries (opioid epidemic). However, little is known about opioid consumption in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this short report, we aim to discuss the increase in opioid consumption in LMICs by providing an update on the opioid perspective in Brazil. METHODS: We analyzed opioid sales on the publicly available Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) database from 2015 to 2020. RESULTS: In Brazil, opioid sales increased 34.8 %, from 8,839,029 prescriptions in 2015 to 11,913,823 prescriptions in 2020, this represents an increase from 44 to 56 prescriptions for every 1,000 inhabitants. Codeine phosphate combined with paracetamol and tramadol hydrochloride were the most common opioids prescribed with an increase each year. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that opioid prescriptions are rising in Brazil in a 5 years period. Brazil may have a unique opportunity to learn from other countries and develop consistent policies and guidelines to better educate patients and prescribers and to prevent an opioid crisis.

Characteristics of Canadians Living With Long-Term Health Conditions or Disabilities Who Had Unmet Rehabilitation Needs During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the characteristics associated with unmet rehabilitation needs in a sample of Canadians with long-term health conditions or disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We used data from the Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadians Living With Long-Term Conditions and Disabilities, a national cross-sectional survey with 13,487 respondents. Unmet needs were defined as needing rehabilitation (ie, physiotherapy/massage/chiropractic, speech therapy, occupational therapy, counseling services, or support groups) but not receiving due to the pandemic. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression to examine the association between demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics and unmet rehabilitation needs. RESULTS: More than half of the sample were 50 years and older (52.3%), female (53.8%), and 49.3% reported unmet rehabilitation needs. Those more likely to report unmet needs were females, those with lower socioeconomic status (receiving disability benefits or social assistance, job loss, increased work hours, decreased household income or earnings), and those with lower perceived general health or mental health status. CONCLUSIONS: Among Canadians with disabilities or chronic health conditions, marginalized groups are more likely to report unmet rehabilitation needs. Understanding the systemic and upstream determinants is necessary to develop strategies to minimize unmet rehabilitation needs and facilitate the delivery of equitable rehabilitation services.