The Global Spine Care Initiative: a systematic review for the assessment of spine-related complaints in populations with limited resources and in low- and middle-income communities

Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol

BACKGROUND

Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world.

METHODS

The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada.

DESIGN

Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.

Recommendations for Mobilization and Manipulation Treatment and Screening for Vascular Complications in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Neck Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to determine the methodological quality of international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and the clinical credibility and implementability of recommendations regarding manipulation or mobilization treatment recommendations proposed in CPGs for the management of people with neck pain. A secondary aim of this review was to provide an overview of recommendations for manipulation or mobilization in patients with neck pain. Manipulation or mobilization treatment of patients with neck pain is under debate for its potential risk of serious adverse events. Serious adverse events are rare, but it is the clinicians' responsibility to thoroughly screen patients at risk of vascular complications. A third aim of this review was to describe the extent to which the included guidelines inform clinical practice about screening for the risk of complications due to vascular pathology in the cervical spine.

METHODS

A systematic review of 13 electronic databases and 4 repositories was performed for potentially relevant guidelines published between January 1, 2000 and September 22, 2022. Two reviewers independently appraised eligible guidelines using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation: Recommendation EXcellence (AGREE-REX) criteria. A best evidence synthesis was performed, and screening of risk factors was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 19 CPGs were included, of which 5 were of high quality. All high-quality guidelines recommend the use of manipulation or mobilization, with or without exercise. Eight (42%) guidelines described the screening of risk factors for adverse events. Two (11%) guidelines met the a priori defined criteria for screening and scored present and complete.

CONCLUSION

International CPGs consistently recommend the use of manipulations and mobilizations in the treatment of neck pain. There is a notable absence of recommendations regarding the identification of patients at risk for vascular complications.

IMPACT

The findings of this study allow guideline developers to improve the quality of future neck pain guidelines and consider including vascular screening tools. Furthermore, it proposes recommendations to physical therapists interested in applying manipulations and mobilizations in the treatment of patients with neck pain.

LAY SUMMARY

International clinical practice guidelines consistently recommend the use of manipulations and mobilizations in the treatment of neck pain. There is a notable absence of recommendations regarding identifying patients at risk for vascular complications.

Short-term efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technology (UBE) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion(ACDF)for the treatment of single-segment cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 60 patients with CSR, of which 30 were treated with ACDF (group A) and 30 were treated with UBE (group B). Cision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, postoperative complications preoperative and postoperative VAS, NDI scores, height and stability of the liability gap were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the A group, the incision length, duration and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in the B group (P < 0.05), and the difference was statistically significant. As the postoperative time increased, the VAS score and NDI score decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.05or < 0.01). However, the differences in VAS and NDI scores between the two groups at the corresponding time points were not statistically significant, and only the VAS score at 1 day postoperatively showed a more pronounced decrease in the B group, which was statistically significant compared with that in the A group. The difference in intervertebral space height and stability of the postoperative liability gap between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant when compared with the preoperative period. The incidence of postoperative complications in the two groups was smaller in the B group than in the A group, and the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

UBE can effectively treat patients with single-segment CRS and promote rapid recovery.

The John A. Sweaney Lecture: Virtual, September 2021, Given by Dr Michele Maiers. A Time to Lead: Reflections During a Pandemic

The following is The John A. Sweaney Lecture delivered by Dr Michele Maiers at the biannual Congress of the World Federation of Chiropractic that was held virtually on September 25, 2021.

Prevalence of low back pain in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have investigated the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) among Indian subjects, no meta-analysis has been conducted to determine the comprehensive epidemiological point, annual, lifetime prevalence of LBP among Indian subjects. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the point, annual, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in the Indian population. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies that reported point, annual, or lifetime prevalence of LBP among Indian subjects,. Pooled point, annual and lifetime prevalence rates were calculated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were performed. RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies were included in this review. Fifty-four studies included in the review (55.5%) were found to be of higher methodological quality. The pooled point, annual, and lifetime prevalence of LBP in India was 48% (95% CI 40–56%); 51% (95% CI 45–58%), and 66% (95% CI 56–75%), respectively. The pooled prevalence rates were highest among females, the rural population, and among elementary workers. CONCLUSION: The point, annual, and lifetime prevalence rates of LBP in the Indian population is higher compared to global and other ethnic populations affecting a large proportion of the population, especially among women, rural population and in elementary workers. The findings of this study can be the basis for formulating policy regarding the prevention and treatment of LBP in a large part of the global population.

More than one third of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain overlap in AGREE II appraisals. Research wasted?

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals.

METHODS

For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/.

Spatiotemporal patterns of pain distribution and recall accuracy: a dose-response study

OBJECTIVES

Clinical decisions rely on a patient's ability to recall and report their pain experience. Monitoring pain in real-time (momentary pain) may reduce recall errors and optimize the clinical decision-making process. Tracking momentary pain can provide insights into detailed changes in pain intensity and distribution (area and location) over time. The primary aims of this study were (i) to measure the temporal changes of pain intensity, area, and location in a dose-response fashion and (ii) to assess recall accuracy of the peak pain intensity and distribution seven days later, using a digital pain mapping application. The secondary aims were to (i) evaluate the influence of repeated momentary pain drawings on pain recall accuracy and (ii) explore the associations among momentary and recall pain with psychological variables (pain catastrophizing and perceived stress).

METHODS

Healthy participants (N=57) received a low (0.5 ml) or a high (1.0 ml) dose of hypertonic saline (5.8%) injection into the right gluteus medius muscle and, subsequently, were randomized into a non-drawing or a drawing group. The non-drawing groups reported momentary pain intensity every 30-s. Whereas the drawing groups reported momentary pain intensity and distribution on a digital body chart every 30-s. The pain intensity, area (pixels), and distribution metrics (compound area, location, radiating extent) were compared at peak pain and over time to explore dose-response differences and spatiotemporal patterns. All participants recalled the peak pain intensity and the peak (most extensive) distribution seven days later. The peak pain intensity and area recall error was calculated. Pain distribution similarity was determined using a Jaccard index which compares pain drawings representing peak distribution at baseline and recall. The relationships were explored among peak intensity and area at baseline and recall, catastrophizing, and perceived stress.

RESULTS

The pain intensity, area, distribution metrics, and the duration of pain were lower for the 0.5 mL than the 1.0 mL dose over time (p<0.05). However, the pain intensity and area were similar between doses at peak pain (p>0.05). The pain area and distribution between momentary and recall pain drawings were similar (p>0.05), as reflected in the Jaccard index. Additionally, peak pain intensity did not correlate with the peak pain area. Further, peak pain intensity, but not area, was correlated with catastrophizing (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed differences in spatiotemporal patterns of pain intensity and distribution in a dose-response fashion to experimental acute low back pain. Unlike pain intensity, pain distribution and area may be less susceptible in an experimental setting. Higher intensities of momentary pain do not appear to influence the ability to recall the pain intensity or distribution in healthy participants.

IMPLICATIONS

The recall of pain distribution in experimental settings does not appear to be influenced by the intensity despite differences in the pain experience. Pain distribution may add additional value to mechanism-based studies as the distribution reports do not vary with pain catastrophizing. REC# N-20150052.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria.

METHODS

We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions.

RESULTS

Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

ADAPTATION AND TRANSCULTURAL VALIDATION OF THE BRAZILIAN VERSION OF THE BACK PAIN FUNCTIONAL SCALE

ABSTRACT Objective: The Back Pain Functional Scale (BPFS) was designed to evaluate the functional state of individuals with low back pain. The scale consists of twelve items, covering functional aspects of the daily life activities of these individuals. The final score is calculated by summing the responses to each item, the values of which range from 0 to 5, obtaining a total result of 0 to 60 points. Methods: The validation process was developed in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) protocol, covering translation, back translation, semantic equivalence, evaluation by specialists from previous stages, pre-test of the tool, and final version. Subsequently, the final version was applied in a sample of 90 individuals and the data obtained were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, factorial analysis, evaluation of internal consistency, and correlation with other validated tools. Results: The tool was adapted to Brazilian Portuguese, making use of terms to approximate the language of everyday expressions. The final version presented results similar to those from the original version, as demonstrated by the factorial analysis, the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.990), and the strong correlation with tools validated for the Portuguese language. Conclusion: The Brazilian version of BPFS proved to be easy to apply and understand, and presented high internal consistency and construct validity similar to that of the original instrument. Level of evidence 1B; Study of adaptation of a valid score.

Effects of neural mobilization in patients after lumbar microdiscectomy due to intervertebral disc lesion

BACKGROUND

Neural mobilization (NM) techniques have been shown to improve the neural tissue's viscoelastic properties that may lead to recover of the function of the nerve after lumbar spine surgery. This study aimed to determine the effects of NM in addition to standard rehabilitation on lumbar and sciatic pain intensity, disability level, and quality of life in patients after receiving a microdiscectomy of the intervertebral lumbar disc (IVD).

METHODS

Twenty-four participants (age 41.3 ± 8.3 years old) within 3-4 weeks of a microdiscectomy of an IVD were randomly allocated to control (CTRL; n = 12) or NM group (n = 12). The CTRL group received ten standard rehabilitation sessions. The NM group received the same rehabilitation sessions with the addition of NM techniques. The intensity of lumbar and sciatic pain (visual analogue scale), disability level (Oswestry disability index), and health-related quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire) were measured before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Within-group analysis revealed a significant reduction in lumbar (p < 0.05) and sciatic pain intensity (p < 0.001), disability level (p < 0.001), and improvement in the physical function and problems, vitality, emotional well-being, and pain SF-36 items (p < 0.05) in both groups. There were no statistical differences between groups in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A standard rehabilitation protocol alone or in combination with NM techniques are equally effective in reducing pain and disability level, as well as improving quality of life in patients after a microdiscectomy due to intervertebral lumbar disc lesion.

Translation, Cross-cultural Adaptation and Reliability of Brazilian portuguese version of the DRAM Questionnaire for Psychometric Evaluation in Low Back Pain

Objective  Based on studies regarding pain physiology and its relation to emotional distress conditions, psychological evaluation became essential to determine the most favorable patient profiles to distinct therapeutic approaches. The Distress Risk Assessment Method (DRAM) has been developed as a screening instrument for patients with lumbar pain, classifying them in subgroups as normal, at risk, distressed somatic and distressed depressive, based on the two components of DRAM scores (Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire [MSPQ] and Zung questionnaires). The objective of the present study is to translate and culturally adapt the DRAM to the Brazilian Portuguese language, and to determine the reliability of the final version.

Methods  As proposed by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) method, a Brazilian Portuguese version of the DRAM has been applied to a sample of 85 individuals from 3 participant centers.

Results  The results confirmed the reliability and reproducibility of the DRAM in its Brazilian Portuguese final version: Cronbach alpha of 0.815 (MSPQ) and 0.794 (Zung) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.688 (MSPQ) and 0.659 (Zung).

Conclusion  The presented DRAM version in Brazilian Portuguese is reliable and is available to clinical practice use.

Musculoskeletal Disorders a Universal Source of Pain and Disability Misunderstood and Mismanaged: A Critical Analysis Based on the U.S. Model of Care

Musculoskeletal disorders are the leading source of pain and disability globally but are especially prevalent in the industrialized nations including the U.S. In addition to the substantial individual suffering caused the rising monetary costs of these disorders are noteworthy. In the U.S. alone the annual costs have been estimated to be $874 billion 5.7% of the annual U.S. G.D.P. Despite these expenditures the care provided to patients with musculoskeletal disorders is highly variable and has regularly been shown to have suboptimal outcomes. The many reasons for this ineffective care include the mutable nature of the prevailing syndromes and their limited and variable understanding. The care rendered by a broad and incongruent group of providers who practice disparate methodologies and employ variable treatments. Disorderedly triage comprised of arbitrary selection of providers, care methodologies, and treatments, which is prone to a range of extraneous influences. Treatments that are unable to apprehend the causative pathological processes, which are therefore progressive, cause irreversible damage to the respective musculoskeletal structures, and result in enduring pain and disability. The overall lack of preventative care and the consequent prevalence of these disorders especially in specific work environments and with certain high-risk life styles. This article makes recommendations for better understanding, prevention, early recognition, timely employment of disease altering therapies, streamlining the existing care, and policy initiatives for waste confinement and improvement. These discernments may improve the overall quality of care provided to these patients, diminish the staggering pain and disability caused, and can reduce the immense costs incurred.

Comparison of effectiveness for fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroid in cervical post-surgery syndrome

Background

Neck and back pain are leading sources of disability placing substantial burden on health care systems. Surgical interventions in managing chronic neck pain secondary to various disorders continue to increase. Even though surgical interventions are effective, a significant proportion of patients continue to have symptomatology and develop cervical post-surgery syndrome. This study was performed to know the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids.

Methods

The effectiveness of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in post-surgery syndrome was evaluated in a randomized, active controlled trial. The study population included 116 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic alone and Group 2 received injection with local anesthetic and steroids. The main outcomes were defined as significant improvement (greater than 50%) of pain relief using the numeric rating scale and/or functional status improvement using the Neck Disability Index (NDI).

Results

Both groups had similar results with significant improvement (≥ 50% pain relief and functional status improvement) in 69% of the patients in Group I, whereas, in Group II, 71% of the patients showed significant improvement at the end of 2 years. During a 2-year period, the average number of procedures was 5 to 6, with an average of approximately 12 weeks of significant improvement per procedure.

Conclusions

Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections administered in cervical post-surgery syndrome using local anesthetic, regardless of the use of steroids, may be effective in approximately 70% of the patients at 2-year follow-up.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: World Spine Care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

Spinal disorders, including back and neck pain, are major causes of disability, economic hardship, and morbidity, especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is no model of care to address this issue. This paper provides an overview of the papers from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI), which was convened to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable, spinal healthcare model for communities around the world with various levels of resources.

METHODS

Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: resources to implement a spine care program

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a list of resources necessary to implement a model of care for the management of spine-related concerns anywhere in the world, but especially in underserved communities and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.

RESULTS

Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: classification system for spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of a classification system that would apply to anyone with a spine-related concern and that can be used in an evidence-based spine care pathway.

METHODS

Existing classification systems for spinal disorders were assembled. A seed document was developed through round-table discussions followed by a modified Delphi process. International and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Thirty-six experts from 15 countries participated. After the second round, there was 95% agreement of the proposed classification system. The six major classifications included: no or minimal symptoms (class 0); mild symptoms (i.e., neck or back pain) but no interference with activities (class I); moderate or severe symptoms with interference of activities (class II); spine-related neurological signs or symptoms (class III); severe bony spine deformity, trauma or pathology (class IV); and spine-related symptoms or destructive lesions associated with systemic pathology (class V). Subclasses for each major class included chronicity and severity when different interventions were anticipated or recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

An international and interprofessional group developed a comprehensive classification system for all potential presentations of people who may seek care or advice at a spine care program. This classification can be used in the development of a spine care pathway, in clinical practice, and for research purposes. This classification needs to be tested for validity, reliability, and consistency among clinicians from different specialties and in different communities and cultures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: model of care and implementation

PURPOSE

Spine-related disorders are a leading cause of global disability and are a burden on society and to public health. Currently, there is no comprehensive, evidence-based model of care for spine-related disorders, which includes back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, spinal diseases, and pathology, that could be applied in global health care settings. The purposes of this paper are to propose: (1) principles to transform the delivery of spine care; (2) an evidence-based model that could be applied globally; and (3) implementation suggestions.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.

RESULTS

Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) contributors, disclosures, and methods for reporting transparency on the development of the recommendations.

METHODS

World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: care pathway for people with spine-related concerns

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to describe the development of an evidence-based care pathway that can be implemented globally.

METHODS

The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.

RESULTS

After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.

CONCLUSION

A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The Global Spine Care Initiative: a narrative review of psychological and social issues in back pain in low- and middle-income communities

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review was to describe psychological and social factors associated with low back pain that could be applied in spine care programs in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of cohort, cross-sectional, qualitative and mixed methods studies investigating adults with low back pain using Medline and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to June 2015. Eligible studies had at least one of the following outcomes: psychological, social, psychosocial, or cultural/ethnicity factors. Studies met the following criteria: (1) English language, (2) published in peer-reviewed journal, (3) adults with spinal disorders, (4) included treatment, symptom management or prevention.

RESULTS

Out of 58 studies, 29 were included in this review. There are few studies that have evaluated psychological and social factors associated with back pain in low- and middle-income communities, therefore, adapting recommendations from other regions may be needed until further studies can be achieved.

CONCLUSION

Psychological and social factors are important components to addressing low back pain and health care providers play an important role in empowering patients to take control of their spinal health outcomes. Patients should be included in negotiating their spinal treatment and establishing treatment goals through careful listening, reassurance, and information providing by the health care provider. Instruments need to be developed for people with low literacy in medically underserved areas and low- and middle-income countries, especially where psychological and social factors may be difficult to detect and are poorly addressed. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.