Older adults' quality of life - Exploring the role of the built environment and social cohesion in community-dwelling seniors on low income.

The built environment and social cohesion are increasingly recognized as being associated with older adults' quality of life (QoL). However, limited research in this area still exists and the relationship has remained unexplored in the area of Metro Vancouver, Canada. This study examined the association between the built environment and social cohesion with QoL of 160 community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) on low income from Metro Vancouver. Cross-sectional data acquired from the Walk the Talk (WTT) study were used. Health-related QoL (HRQoL) and capability wellbeing were assessed using the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-O, respectively. Measures of the environment comprised the NEWS-A (perceived built environment measure), the Street Smart Walk Score (objective built environment measure), and the SC-5PT (a measure of social cohesion). The primary analysis consists of Tobit regression models to explore the associations between environmental features and HRQoL as well as capability wellbeing. Key findings indicate that after adjusting for covariates, older adults' capability wellbeing was associated with street connectivity and social cohesion, while no statistically significant associations were found between environmental factors and HRQoL. Our results should be considered as hypothesis-generating and need confirmation in a larger longitudinal study.

Should General Practitioners Issue a Sick Certificate to Employees Who Consult for Low Back Pain in Primary Care?

PURPOSE: Back pain is a common problem and has significant societal impact. Sickness certification is commonly issued to patients consulting their general practitioner with low back pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of certification for low back pain with clinical outcomes and cost consequences. METHODS: A prospective cohort study using linked questionnaire and medical record data from 806 low back pain patients in 8 UK general practices: comparison of 116 (14.4%) who received a sickness certificate versus 690 who did not receive certification. The primary clinical measure was the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Data on back pain consultation and work absenteeism were used to calculate healthcare and societal costs. RESULTS: Participants issued a sickness certificate had higher back-related disability at baseline consultation and 6-month follow-up [mean difference 3.1 (95% CI 1.8, 4.4) on the RMDQ], indicating worse health status. After fully adjusting for baseline differences, most changes in clinical outcomes at 6 months were not significantly different between study groups. Productivity losses were significantly higher for the certification group, with most absence occurring after the expected end of certification; mean difference in costs due to absenteeism over 6 months was £1,956 (95% CI £941, £3040). CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between individuals issued a sickness certificate and those not issued a certification for their back pain. With little overall contrast in clinical outcomes, policy makers and care providers may wish to draw on the likely difference in societal costs alongside issues in ethical and moral care in their consideration of patient care for low back pain.

A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Review the use of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) within the context of spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify SCI-related publications that contained any of the following preference-based HRQoL instruments: 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-4D, AQoL-6D, EQ-5D, EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI)-2, HUI-3, Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), SF-6D(SF-36) or SF-6D(SF-12). In addition to providing an overview of how different preference-based measures have been adopted in SCI research to-date, a focus of evaluation was to collate and appraise evidence for measurement properties and identify knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles were identified. No studies have used preference-based measures in their conventional form, that is, to calculate quality-adjusted life years using patient-level data. Eleven papers reported mean utility scores (across six different instruments). Directly comparable data exists for only one SCI-specific sample, which showed variation across EQ-5D (0.63), HUI-2 (0.81) and HUI-3 (0.68) index scores. Indirect comparisons suggested differences between QWB-SA and SF-6D index scores within tetraplegic and paraplegic patient groups. Only the QWB-SA and SF-6D have undergone (partial) psychometric evaluation, with the respective authors concluding that the measures have potential for SCI research. CONCLUSIONS: Despite 'cost-effectiveness' being an increasingly important consideration for decision makers in all areas of health care, there is a distinct lack of conceptual or empirical research regarding the appropriateness of alternative preference-based HRQoL measures for SCI populations. Given the support for economic evaluation within a cost-utility framework and the paucity of psychometric evidence regarding current instruments, further research is needed.

A brief pain management program compared with physical therapy for low back pain: results from an economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early intervention to address psychosocial risk factors associated with long-term disability. We assessed the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a brief pain management program (BPM) targeting psychosocial factors compared with physical therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration. METHODS: A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned to BPM or PT. We adopted a health care perspective, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 12-month change scores on the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Resource use data related to back pain were collected at 12-month followup. Cost effectiveness was expressed as incremental ratios, with uncertainty assessed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in mean health care costs or outcomes between treatments. PT had marginally greater effectiveness at 12 months, albeit with greater health care costs (BPM 142 pounds, PT 195 pounds). The incremental cost-per-QALY ratio was 2,362 pounds. If the UK National Health Service were willing to pay 10,000 pound per additional QALY, there is only a 17% chance that BPM provides the best value for money. CONCLUSION: PT is a cost-effective primary care management strategy for low back pain. However, the absence of a clinically superior treatment program raises the possibility that BPM could provide an additional primary care approach, administered in fewer sessions, allowing patient and doctor preferences to be considered.