Scott Haldeman

The objective of this study was to explore the association between cognitive impairment and spinal pain in the older population in the United States. We undertook a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 1999 to 2000 and 2001 to 2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The pooled data included a representative sample (n = 2975) of older adults (aged 60-85 years) in the United States. Cognitive impairment was assessed through the Digit Symbol Substitution Test. Spinal pain was defined with a multisite definition, including both nonspecific low back pain and neck pain present in the past 3 months. To account for the complex sampling design, logistic regression was performed using Taylor linearized variance estimation to compute weighted measures of associations. For older adults with spinal pain, the proportion of cognitive impairment increased with age, from 32.64% in the 60 to 64 age group to 93.83% in the 80 to 84 age group, which was also statistically significantly higher than the general population group and the group without spinal pain (P < .001). After controlling for demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and general health status, older adults with spinal pain had significantly increased odds of cognitive impairment (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.12, 2.79). Vulnerable subgroups (older, female, and less education) were identified. There was a significant association between cognitive impairment and spinal pain in the older adult population in the United States. Within this population, there were vulnerable subgroups for which spinal pain and cognitive impairment had a greater impact, namely people who are older, female, and those with less education.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of selected adverse outcomes for older adults with a new episode of neck pain (NP) receiving chiropractic care compared to those receiving primary medical care with Prescription Drug Therapy (PDT) or primary care without medication. Through analysis of Medicare claims data, we designed a retrospective cohort study including 291 604 patients with a new office visit for NP in 2019. We developed 3 mutually exclusive exposure groups: the Chiropractic Manipulative Therapy (CMT) group received spinal manipulative therapy from a chiropractor with no primary care visits; the PDT group visited primary care and filled an analgesic prescription within 7 days without chiropractic care, and the Primary Care Only (PCO) group visited primary care without chiropractic care or analgesic prescriptions. We analyzed possible complications, including adverse drug events, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, and other selected adverse outcomes, calculating incidence rate ratios over 24 months using Poisson regression with robust standard errors and inverse propensity weighing to balance the exposure groups regarding patient characteristics. Among 291 604 patients, 182 596 (63%) received chiropractic care. For CMT vs PDT, the rate for any measured adverse outcome was 20% lower; for CMT vs PCO, the rate was 14% lower, and for PDT vs PCO, the rate was 6% higher. PDT had the highest risk of any measured adverse outcome. For Medicare Part B beneficiaries with new onset NP, management with chiropractic care was associated with lower rates of adverse events than primary medical care. The PDT group had the highest risk of any measured adverse outcome.

Back pain is very common and a leading cause of disability worldwide. Due to health care system inequalities, Indigenous communities have a disproportionately higher prevalence of injury and acute and chronic diseases compared to the general Canadian population. Indigenous communities, particularly in northern Canada, have limited access to evidence-based spine care. Strategies established in collaboration with Indigenous peoples are needed to address unmet healthcare needs, including spine care (chiropractic and movement program) services. This study aimed to understand the views and perspectives of Cross Lake community leaders and clinicians working at Cross Lake Nursing Station (CLNS) in northern Manitoba regarding the implementation of the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) model of spine care (MoC) and related implementation strategies. A qualitative exploratory design using an interpretivist paradigm was used. Twenty community partners were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) adapted to capture pertinent information. Data were analyzed deductively and inductively, and the interpretation of findings were explored in consultation with community members and partners. Community leaders (n = 9) and physicians, nurses, and allied health workers (n = 11) emphasized: 1) the importance of contextualizing the MoC (triaging and care pathway) and proposed new services through in-person community engagement; 2) the need and desire for local non-pharmacological spine care approaches; and 3) streamlining patient triage and CLNS workflow. Recommendations for the streamlining included reducing managerial/administrative duties, educating new incoming clinicians, incorporating follow-up appointments for spine pain patients, and establishing an electronic medical record system along with a patient portal. Suggestions regarding how to sustain the new spine care services included providing transportation, protecting allocated clinic space, resolving insurance coverage discrepancies, addressing misconceptions about chiropractic care, instilling the value of physical activity for self-care and pain relief, and a short-term (30-day) incentivised movement program which considers a variety of movement options and offers a social component after each session. Community partners were favorable to the inclusion of a refined GSCI MoC. Adapting the TDF to unique Indigenous needs may help understand how best to implement the MoC in communities with similar needs.

Spinal pain and chronic health conditions are highly prevalent, burdensome, and costly conditions, both in the United States and globally. Using cross-sectional data from the 2016 through 2018 National Health Interview Survey (n = 26,926), we explored associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions and investigated the influence that a set of confounders may have on the associations between spinal pain and chronic health conditions. Variance estimation method was used to compute weighted descriptive statistics and measures of associations with multinomial logistic regression models. All four chronic health conditions significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain; cardiovascular conditions by 58%, hypertension by 40%, diabetes by 25% and obesity by 34%, controlling for all the confounders. For all chronic health conditions, tobacco use (45–50%), being insufficiently active (17–20%), sleep problems (180–184%), cognitive impairment (90–100%), and mental health conditions (68–80%) significantly increased the prevalence odds of spinal pain compared to cases without spinal pain. These findings provide evidence to support research on the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions with approaches of spinal pain management.

Low back pain and depression have been globally recognized as key public health problems and they are considered co-morbid conditions. This study explores both cross-sectional and longitudinal comorbid associations between back pain and major depression in the adult population in the United States. We used data from the Midlife in the United States survey (MIDUS), linking MIDUS II and III with a sample size of 2358. Logistic regression and Poisson regression models were used. The cross-sectional analysis showed significant associations between back pain and major depression. The longitudinal analysis indicated that back pain at baseline was prospectively associated with major depression at follow-up (PR 1.96, CI: 1.41, 2.74), controlling for health behavioral and demographic variables. Major depression at baseline was also prospectively associated with back pain at follow-up (PR 1.48, CI: 1.04, 2.13), controlling for a set of related confounders. These findings of a bidirectional comorbid association fill a gap in the current understanding of these comorbid conditions and could have clinical implications for the management and prevention of both depression and low back pain.

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias. The study sample totaled 28,160 subjects, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT as compared to those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; p <0.0001). Adults aged 65-84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain, but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare as compared to patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

The objective of this study was to compare patients' perspectives on the use of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to prescription drug therapy (PDT) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient beliefs, and satisfaction with treatment. Four cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries were assembled according to previous treatment received as evidenced in claims data: SMT, PDT, and 2 crossover cohorts (where participants experienced both types of treatments). A total of 195 Medicare beneficiaries responded to the survey. Outcome measures used were a 0-to-10 numeric rating scale to measure satisfaction, the Low Back Pain Treatment Beliefs Questionnaire to measure patient beliefs, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey to measure HRQoL. Recipients of SMT were more likely to be very satisfied with their care (84%) than recipients of PDT (50%; P = .002). The SMT cohort self-reported significantly higher HRQoL compared to the PDT cohort; mean differences in physical and mental health scores on the 12-item Short Form Health Survey were 12.85 and 9.92, respectively. The SMT cohort had a lower degree of concern regarding chiropractic care for their back pain compared to the PDT cohort's reported concern about PDT (P = .03). Among older Medicare beneficiaries with chronic low back pain, long-term recipients of SMT had higher self-reported rates of HRQoL and greater satisfaction with their modality of care than long-term recipients of PDT. Participants who had longer-term management of care were more likely to have positive attitudes and beliefs toward the mode of care they received.

Introduction Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health. Methods Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design. Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response. Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci. Phase 3: informed by phases 1–2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions. Results Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action. Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model. Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening. Conclusion An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.