Estimating the impact of metabolic syndrome on low back pain and the joint effects of metabolic syndrome and depressive symptoms on low back pain: insights from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Although metabolic syndrome (MetS) and depressive symptoms (DS) are predictors of low back pain (LBP), their combined effects and relative contributions to LBP have not been well studied. Using the nationally representative data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), this study conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses to investigate the impact of MetS on LBP, and the joint effects of MetS and DS on LBP. METHODS: This study included a cross-sectional analysis of 8957 participants aged at least 45 years from the CHARLS 2011 dataset and a longitudinal follow-up of 3468 participants without LBP from the CHARLS 2011, tracked over 9.25 years (from June 2011 to September 2020) with 4 times LBP assessment in CHARLS 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2020. To explore the association between MetS on LBP and the joint effects of MetS and DS on LBP, multivariable-adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Multivariable-adjusted COX proportional hazards regression models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA (version SE16). RESULTS: In the cross-sectional analysis, MetS was associated with a lower risk of LBP (adjusted OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74-0.97), while there was no significance for this association in the longitudinal analysis. In the joint association of MetS and DS with LBP, participants with NoMetS + DS (adjusted OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.94-2.75), and MetS + DS (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.81-2.59) were risk factors for LBP events, while those with MetS + NoDS (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62-0.90) was a protective factor for LBP events than those with NoMetS + NoDS. During the 9.25 years of follow-up, 1708 cases (49.25%) experienced incident LBP events. In the longitudinal analysis, a significantly negative association was not found in MetS + NoDS for LBP events. Three sensitivity analyses identified the robustness of the associations. Moreover, the nature of cross-sectional associations differed by age (45-64 and 65 + years). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that MetS was linked to a lower incidence of LBP, but this effect does not persist over time. Importantly, the combination of MetS and DS significantly increased LBP risk, a joint effect not extensively studied before. These findings underscore the novel contribution of our research, advocating for the joint assessment of MetS and DS to enhance LBP risk stratification and inform prevention strategies.

Mapping the awareness and knowledge about patient and public versions of guidelines among stakeholders in China: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Patient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) have gradually gained wide recognition and attention from the public and the society due to their scientific, professional, and authoritative characteristics. This study aims to survey the awareness and knowledge of PVGs among stakeholders in China. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional survey among stakeholders (guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, patients, and the public) in China. We self-designed the questionnaire and distributed it through the Questionnaire Star platform. The primary outcomes were awareness of PVGs and opinions about the development methodology, writing, dissemination, and implementation of PVGs. The Kruskal-Wallis H test and post hoc multiple comparison tests were used to compare the levels of awareness of PVGs between different subgroups of respondents. RESULTS: A total of 1319 valid questionnaires were collected: 722 from guideline developers, 136 from clinicians, 83 from journal editors, 284 from patients, and 94 from members of the public. Of all respondents, 253 (19.2%) had not heard of PVGs, 349 (26.5%) had heard of PVGs but had no further knowledge, 475 (36.0%) had some knowledge of PVGs, and 242 (18.3%) were familiar with or had participated in the development of PVGs. Guideline developers, clinicians, and journal editors had higher awareness than patients and the public. Higher education and older age also correlated with higher awareness of PVGs. More than half (52.9%) of guideline developers considered that both rewriting of the source guidelines and direct development as independent documents were appropriate methods for developing PVGs. The survey respondents agreed that clinicians (97.3%), guideline methodologists (76.6%), representatives of patients and the public (74.5%), and medical editors or writers (63.4%) should participate in the development of PVGs. More than 80% of the respondents agreed that the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations should be presented; however, there was no consensus in the form of presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The level of awareness of PVGs among stakeholders in China is relatively low and differs between different stakeholder groups, but the majority of key stakeholders have a positive attitude toward PVGs. The collection of the perspectives and opinions on the development methods, writing, dissemination, and implementation provides a key reference and basis for the future optimization and improvement of PVGs development.