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.

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.

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.

Workplace and non-workplace cannabis use and the risk of workplace injury: Findings from a longitudinal study of Canadian workers.

OBJECTIVES: Findings of previous studies examining the relationship between cannabis use and workplace injury have been conflicting, likely due to methodological shortcomings, including cross-sectional designs and exposure measures that lack consideration for timing of use. The objective was to estimate the association between workplace cannabis use (before and/or at work) and non-workplace use and the risk of workplace injury. METHODS: Canadian workers participating in a yearly longitudinal study (from 2018 to 2020) with at least two adjacent years of survey data comprised the analytic sample (n = 2745). The exposure was past-year workplace cannabis use (no past-year use, non-workplace use, workplace use). The outcome was past-year workplace injury (yes/no). Absolute risks and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated between workplace and non-workplace cannabis use at one time point and workplace injury at the following time point. Models were adjusted for personal and work variables and were also stratified by whether respondents' jobs were safety-sensitive. RESULTS: Compared to no past-year cannabis use, there was no difference in workplace injury risk for non-workplace cannabis use (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.83-1.44). However, workplace use was associated with an almost two-fold increased risk of experiencing a workplace injury (RR 1.97, 95%CI 1.32-2.93). Findings were similar for workers in safety-sensitive and non-safety-sensitive work. CONCLUSION: It is important to distinguish between non-workplace and workplace use when considering workplace safety impacts of cannabis use. Findings have implications for workplace cannabis use policies and substantiate the need for worker education on the risks of workplace cannabis use.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Les résultats d'études antérieures portant sur la relation entre la consommation de cannabis et les accidents du travail sont contradictoires, probablement en raison de lacunes méthodologiques, notamment les études transversales et les mesures de l'exposition qui ne tiennent pas compte du moment de la consommation. L'objectif était d'estimer l'association entre la consommation de cannabis sur le lieu de travail (avant et/ou pendant le travail) et la consommation en dehors du lieu de travail et le risque d'accident du travail. MéTHODES: Les travailleurs canadiens participant à une étude longitudinale annuelle (de 2018 à 2020) avec au moins deux années adjacentes de données d'enquête constituaient l'échantillon analytique (n = 2 745). L'exposition était la consommation de cannabis au travail au cours de l'année écoulée (pas de consommation au cours de l'année écoulée, consommation en dehors du lieu de travail, consommation sur le lieu de travail). Le résultat était l'accident du travail de l'année écoulée (oui/non). Les risques absolus et les risques relatifs (RR) avec des intervalles de confiance (IC) de 95% ont été estimés entre la consommation de cannabis sur le lieu de travail et en dehors du lieu de travail à un moment donné et l'accident du travail au moment suivant. Les modèles ont été ajustés pour tenir compte des variables personnelles et professionnelles et ont également été stratifiés selon que les emplois des répondants étaient ou non sensibles à la sécurité. RéSULTATS: Par rapport à l'absence de consommation de cannabis au cours de l'année écoulée, il n'y avait pas de différence dans le risque d'accident du travail en cas de consommation de cannabis en dehors du lieu de travail (RR 1,09, IC à 95% 0,83­1,44). Cependant, la consommation sur le lieu de travail était associée à un risque presque deux fois plus élevé de subir un accident du travail (RR 1,97, IC à 95% 1,32­2,93). Les résultats étaient similaires pour les travailleurs exerçant des activités sensibles à la sécurité et pour ceux qui ne le sont pas. CONCLUSION: Il est important de distinguer entre la consommation en dehors du lieu de travail et la consommation sur le lieu de travail lorsqu'on étudie les effets de la consommation de cannabis sur la sécurité sur le lieu de travail. Les résultats ont des implications pour les politiques relatives à la consommation de cannabis sur le lieu de travail et justifient la nécessité d'informer les travailleurs sur les risques liés à la consommation de cannabis sur le lieu de travail.

Cannabis use among workers with work-related injuries and illnesses: results from a cross-sectional study of workers' compensation claimants in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how workers use cannabis following a work-related injury/illness, including whether they receive clinical guidance. The objective was to compare characteristics of workers using and not using cannabis after a work-related injury/illness and describe use patterns. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Workers who experienced a work-related physical injury/illness resulting in one or more days of lost time compensated by the workers' compensation authority in Ontario, Canada (n=1196). METHODS: Participants were interviewed 18 or 36 months after their injury/illness. Participants were asked about their past-year cannabis use, including whether use was for the treatment of their work-related condition. Sociodemographic, work and health characteristics were compared across cannabis groups: no past-year use; use for the work-related condition; use unrelated to the work-related condition. Cannabis use reasons, patterns, perceived impact and healthcare provider engagement were described. RESULTS: In total, 27.4% of the sample reported using cannabis (14.1% for their work-related condition). Workers using cannabis for their condition were less likely to be working (58.0%) and more likely to have quite a bit/extreme pain interference (48.5%), psychological distress (26.0%) and sleep problems most/all the time (62.1%) compared with those not using cannabis (74.3%, 26.3%, 12.0% and 38.0%, respectively) and those using cannabis for other reasons (74.2%, 19.5%, 12.0% and 37.1%, respectively) (all p<0.0001). No significant differences were observed in medical authorisations for use among those using cannabis for their condition (20.4%) or unrelated to their condition (15.7%) (p=0.3021). Healthcare provider guidance was more common among those using cannabis for their condition (32.7%) compared with those using for other reasons (17.1%) (p=0.0024); however, two-thirds of this group did not receive guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis may be used to manage the consequences of work-related injuries/illnesses, yet most do not receive clinical guidance. It is important that healthcare providers speak with injured workers about their cannabis use.

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.

Identifying chronic low back pain phenotypic domains and characteristics accounting for individual variation: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Interpatient variability is frequently observed among individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP). This review aimed at identifying phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP. We searched MEDLINE ALL (through Ovid), Embase Classic and EMBASE (through Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL Complete (through EBSCOhost) databases. Studies that aimed to identify or predict cLBP different phenotypes were included. We excluded studies that focused on specific treatments. The methodological quality was assessed using an adaptation of the Downs and Black tool. Forty-three studies were included. Although the patient and pain-related characteristics used to identify phenotypes varied considerably across studies, the following were among the most identified phenotypic domains and characteristics that account for interpatient variability in cLBP: pain-related characteristics (including location, severity, qualities, and duration) and pain impact (including disability, sleep, and fatigue), psychological domains (including anxiety and depression), behavioral domains (including coping, somatization, fear avoidance, and catastrophizing), social domains (including employment and social support), and sensory profiling (including pain sensitivity and sensitization). Despite these findings, our review showed that the evidence on pain phenotyping still requires further investigation. The assessment of the methodological quality revealed several limitations. We recommend adopting a standard methodology to enhance the generalizability of the results and the implementation of a comprehensive and feasible assessment framework to facilitate personalized treatments in clinical settings.

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.

Association of persistent pain with the incidence of chronic conditions following a disabling work-related injury.

OBJECTIVES: In a cohort of workers disabled by a work-related injury or illness, this study aimed to: (i) compare pre-injury prevalence estimates for common chronic conditions to chronic condition prevalence in a representative sample of working adults; (ii) calculate the incidence of chronic conditions post-injury; and (iii) estimate the association between persistent pain symptoms and the incidence of common chronic conditions. METHODS: Eighteen months post-injury, 1832 workers disabled by a work-related injury or illness in Ontario, Canada, completed an interviewer-administered survey. Participants reported pre- and post-injury prevalence of seven physician-diagnosed chronic conditions, and demographic, employment, and health characteristics. Pre-injury prevalence estimates were compared to estimates from a representative sample of workers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of persistent pain with post-injury chronic condition incidence. RESULTS: Age-standardized pre-injury prevalence rates for diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and back problems were similar to prevalence rates observed among working adults in Ontario, while prevalence rates for mood disorder, asthma and migraine were moderately elevated. Post-injury prevalence rates of mood disorder, migraine, hypertension, arthritis, and back problems were elevated substantially in this cohort. High persistent pain symptoms were strongly associated with the 18-month incidence of these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of five chronic conditions over an 18-month follow-up period post injury was substantial. Persistent pain at 18 months was associated with this elevated incidence, with population attributable fraction estimates suggesting that 37-39% of incident conditions may be attributed to exposure to high levels of persistent pain.

Opioid Disposal Practices of Patients With Life-Limiting Cancers in an Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Patients with life-limiting cancers are commonly prescribed opioids to manage pain, dyspnea, and cough. Proper prescription opioid disposal is essential to prevent poisonings and deaths. Objective: We examined opioid disposal practices of patients referred to a Canadian outpatient palliative care clinic (OPCC). The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of OPCC patients who did not routinely dispose their opioids. The secondary objectives were to examine their methods of opioid disposal and to identify patient characteristics associated with routine disposal of opioids. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study involved a retrospective chart review of new, adult patients who were seen in a Canadian OPCC (September 2018-August 2019) and completed a survey about opioid-related constructs: source of prescriptions, use, storage, disposal, and knowledge about associated harms. Results: Among the 122 study participants, half (58/111, 52.3%) reported that they did not routinely dispose their opioids. The most common method of disposal was by giving them to pharmacists (69/88, 78.4%). Cannabis use (odds ratio [OR]: 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-11.8) and neuropathic medication use (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.2-7.2) were positively associated with routine disposal of opioids. Conversely, reports of an increased amount of opioid use in the past six months were negatively associated with routine disposal of opioids (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.88). Conclusion: The high prevalence of people with life-limiting illnesses who do not routinely dispose their opioids requires increased attention. Interventions, such as education, are needed to reduce medication waste and opioid-related harms.

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.

Medical Cannabis Use and Inflammatory Cytokines and Chemokines Among Adult Chronic Pain Patients.

Background: Utilizing cannabis as a therapeutic option for chronic pain (CP) has increased significantly. However, data regarding the potential immunomodulatory effects of cannabis in CP patients remain scarce. We aimed at exploring the relationship between cannabis use and inflammatory cytokines and chemokines among a cohort of CP patients. Methods: Adult patients with a CP diagnosis and medical authorization of cannabis were enrolled. Patients completed validated clinical questionnaires and self-reported the effectiveness of cannabis for symptom management. Patients' blood and cannabis samples were analyzed for the presence of four major cannabinoids, two major cannabinoid metabolites, 29 different cytokines/chemokines, and cortisol. The multivariable linear regression model was used to identify cannabis and patient factors associated with immune markers. Results: Fifty-six patients (48±15 years; 64% females) were included, with dried cannabis (53%) being the most common type of cannabis consumed. Seventy percent of products were considered delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC)-dominant. The majority of patients (96%) self-reported effective pain management, and 76% reported a significant decrease in analgesic medication usage (p≤0.001). Compared with males, female patients had higher plasma levels of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidiolic acid, Δ9-THC, and 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol but lower concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid and 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH). Females had significantly lower eotaxin levels (p=0.04) in comparison to male patients. The regression analysis indicated that high cannabis doses were related to increased levels of interleukin (IL)-12p40 (p=0.02) and IL-6 (p=0.01), whereas female sex was associated with decreased eotaxin (p≤0.01) concentrations. Blood CBD levels were associated with lower vascular endothelial growth factor (p=0.04) concentrations, and THC-COOH was a factor related to decreased tumor necrosis factor alpha (p=0.02) and IL-12p70 (p=0.03). Conclusion: This study provides further support for the patient-perceived effectiveness of cannabis in managing CP symptoms and reducing analgesic medication consumption. The results suggest a potential sex difference in metabolizing cannabinoids, and the varying immune marker concentrations may support a possible immunomodulatory effect associated with patient sex and cannabis product type. These preliminary findings provide grounds for further validation using larger, well-designed studies with longer follow-up periods.

Opioid Utilization and Management in the Setting of Stewardship During Inpatient Rehab Care.

Background: Opioid utilization and management in an inpatient rehabilitation setting have not been widely described, despite the unique opportunities that exist in this setting to support opioid stewardship across transitions in care. We aimed to characterize opioid utilization and management by interprofessional teams across a large, inpatient rehabilitation setting after incorporation of opioid stewardship principles by pharmacists as part of their daily practice. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective chart review at Toronto Rehab, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. Patients with admission orders for any opioid from November 2017 to February 2018 were included. Complex continuing care and palliative care patients were excluded. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to describe the data as well as univariate linear regression to compare associations with milligram morphine equivalent (MME) reduction. Results: A total of 448 patients were included. A reduction in total daily MME was seen in 49% (n=219) of the patients during their inpatient stay, with 73% (n=159) of these patients having a reduction of ≥50%. Sixty-nine percent (n=311) of the patients received an opioid prescription at discharge, with most scheduled (90%, n=98) with a supply of less than 30 days. Rehabilitation length of stay was correlated with a MME decrease during rehab (p<0.01), suggesting that longer lengths of stay contributed to a greater reduction in MME. Patients with chronic opioid use prior to acute care admission (p=0.01), and those who started extended-release opioids during acute care (p=0.02) were significantly less likely to discontinue opioids during rehab stay. Conclusion: Opioid utilization and management in the setting of opioid stewardship across inpatient rehab and transitions of care were characterized. Opportunities exist for further quality improvement initiatives within inpatient rehabilitation and acute care settings to identify and support patients with complex pain management needs.

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.

Development and testing of an opioid tapering self-management intervention for chronic pain: I-WOTCH.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the design, development and pilot of a multicomponent intervention aimed at supporting withdrawal of opioids for people with chronic non-malignant pain for future evaluation in the Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: The I-WOTCH intervention draws on previous literature and collaboration with stakeholders (patient and public involvement). Intervention mapping and development activities of Behaviour Change Taxonomy are described. SETTING: The intervention development was conducted by a multidisciplinary team with clinical, academic and service user perspectives. The team had expertise in the development and testing of complex health behaviour interventions, opioid tapering and pain management in primary and secondary care, I.T programming, and software development-to develop an opioid tapering App. PARTICIPANTS: The I-WOTCH trial participants are adults (18 years and over) with chronic non-malignant pain using strong opioids for at least 3 months and on most days in the preceding month. OUTCOMES: A multicomponent self-management support package to help people using opioids for chronic non-malignant pain reduce opioid use. INTERVENTIONS AND RESULTS: Receiving information on the impact of long-term opioid use, and potential adverse effects were highlighted as important facilitators in making the decision to reduce opioids. Case studies of those who have successfully stopped taking opioids were also favoured as a facilitator to reduce opioid use. Barriers included the need for a 'trade-off to fill the deficit of the effect of the drug'. The final I-WOTCH intervention consists of an 8-10 week programme incorporating: education; problem-solving; motivation; group and one to one tailored planning; reflection and monitoring. A detailed facilitator manual was developed to promote consistent delivery of the intervention across the UK. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the development of an opioid reduction intervention package suitable for testing in the I-WOTCH randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 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).

Non-operative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic claudication due to lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a growing health problem in older adults. We updated our previous Cochrane review (2013) to determine the effectiveness of non-operative treatment of LSS with neurogenic claudication. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched and updated up to 22 July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials published in English where at least one arm provided data on non-operative treatment and included participants diagnosed with neurogenic claudication with imaging confirmed LSS. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Of 15 200 citations screened, 156 were assessed and 23 new trials were identified. There is moderate-quality evidence from three trials that: Manual therapy and exercise provides superior and clinically important short-term improvement in symptoms and function compared with medical care or community-based group exercise; manual therapy, education and exercise delivered using a cognitive-behavioural approach demonstrates superior and clinically important improvements in walking distance in the immediate to long term compared with self-directed home exercises and glucocorticoid plus lidocaine injection is more effective than lidocaine alone in improving statistical, but not clinically important improvements in pain and function in the short term. The remaining 20 new trials demonstrated low-quality or very low-quality evidence for all comparisons and outcomes, like the findings of our original review. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that a multimodal approach which includes manual therapy and exercise, with or without education, is an effective treatment and that epidural steroids are not effective for the management of LSS with neurogenic claudication. All other non-operative interventions provided insufficient quality evidence to make conclusions on their effectiveness. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191860.

Opioid safety recommendations in adult palliative medicine: a North American Delphi expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the escalating public health emergency related to opioid-related deaths in Canada and the USA, opioids are essential for palliative care (PC) symptom management.Opioid safety is the prevention, identification and management of opioid-related harms. The Delphi technique was used to develop expert consensus recommendations about how to promote opioid safety in adults receiving PC in Canada and the USA. METHODS: Through a Delphi process comprised of two rounds, USA and Canadian panellists in PC, addiction and pain medicine developed expert consensus recommendations. Elected Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) board members then rated how important it is for PC physicians to be aware of each consensus recommendation.They also identified high-priority research areas from the topics that did not achieve consensus in Round 2. RESULTS: The panellists (Round 1, n=23; Round 2, n=22) developed a total of 130 recommendations from the two rounds about the following six opioid-safety related domains: (1) General principles; (2) Measures for healthcare institution and PC training and clinical programmes; (3) Patient and caregiver assessments; (4) Prescribing practices; (5) Monitoring; and (6) Patients and caregiver education. Fifty-nine topics did not achieve consensus and were deemed potential areas of research. From these results, CSPCP identified 43 high-priority recommendations and 8 high-priority research areas. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent guidance about opioid safety is needed to address the opioid crisis. These consensus recommendations can promote safer opioid use, while recognising the importance of these medications for PC symptom management.

Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Rehabilitation.

ABSTRACT: Systematic reviews are reviews of the literature using a step-by-step approach in a systematic way. Meta-analyses are systematic reviews that use statistical methods to combine the included studies to generate an effect estimate. In this article, we summarize 10 steps for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of rehabilitation medicine: protocol, review team and funding, objectives and research question, literature search, study selection, risk of bias, data extraction, data analysis, reporting of results and conclusions, and publication and dissemination. There are currently 64,958 trials that contain the word "rehabilitation" in CENTRAL (the database of clinical trials in the Cochrane Library), only 1246 reviews, and 237 protocols. There is an urgent need for rehabilitation physicians to engage and conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis of a variety of rehabilitation interventions. Systematic reviews have become the foundation of clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments, formulary inclusion decisions and to guide funding additional research in that area.