Towards healthy populations: A need to strengthen systems for musculoskeletal health

"All of these things interact, that's why it's such a wicked problem": Stakeholders' perspectives of what hinders low back pain care in Australia and how to improve it

BACKGROUND

Low-quality care for low back pain (LBP) is pervasive in Australia. Drivers of low-quality care have been identified elsewhere and include misconceptions about LBP, vested interests and limited funding for evidence-based interventions. Yet, the literature that identified such drivers is not specific to the Australian context, and therefore, it is likely to represent only part of the local problem. This study aimed to determine where the most influential drivers of LBP care are in the Australian healthcare system and what could be done to address them.

METHODS

Clinical leaders from various disciplines, academics, hospital managers, policy-makers, consumers involved in LBP advocacy, board members of relevant health profession boards and private insurers were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Interview data were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 37 stakeholders. Challenges that hinder LBP care in Australia included variability in care and inconsistent messages, funding models that are not supportive of appropriate care for LBP, the community's understanding of LBP, vested interests and commercial forces, difficulties in accessing timely and affordable conservative care, neglect of social determinants and health inequities, short consultations, siloed practices, uncertainties that stem from gaps in evidence and the experience of having LBP, individual and contextual variability, the mismatch between evidence and practice, the Australian healthcare system itself, the lack of political will and acknowledgement of LBP as a public health issue, stigma, the need to improve human aspects and the compensation system. When discussing factors that could improve LBP care, participants raised collaboration, changes in funding, improvement of access to - and affordability of - models of care and care pathways, public health campaigns targeting LBP, enhancement of policy and governance, increasing and better training the workforce, consideration of inequities, making improvements in information sharing and reforming the worker's compensation sector.

CONCLUSIONS

LBP is a wicked problem, influenced by several systemic factors. An agenda for system change in the LBP landscape should be guided by a collaborative, coherent and integrated approach across sectors to enhance quality of care and system efficiency for those who seek and provide care.

Strengthening the pain care ecosystem to support equitable, person-centered, high-value musculoskeletal pain care

ABSTRACT

Improving health and wellbeing outcomes for people experiencing chronic musculoskeletal pain requires collective efforts across multiple levels of a healthcare ecosystem. System-wide barriers to care equity must however be addressed (eg, lack of co-designed services; overuse of low value care/underuse of high value care; inadequate health workforce; inappropriate funding models; inequitable access to medicines and technologies; inadequate research and innovation). In this narrative review, utilizing a systems' thinking framework, we synthesize novel insights on chronic musculoskeletal pain research contextualized through the lens of this complex, interconnected system, the "pain care ecosystem." We examine the application of systems strengthening research to build capacity across this ecosystem to support equitable person-centred care and healthy ageing across the lifespan. This dynamic ecosystem is characterized by three interconnected levels. At its centre is the person experiencing chronic musculoskeletal pain (micro-level). This level is connected with health services and health workforce operating to co-design and deliver person-centred care (meso-level), underpinned further upstream by contemporary health and social care systems (macro-level context). We provide emerging evidence for how we, and others, are working towards building ecosystem resilience to support quality musculoskeletal pain care: at the macro-level (eg, informing musculoskeletal policy and health strategy priorities); at the meso-level (eg, service co-design across care settings; health workforce capacity); and downstream, at the micro-level (eg, person-centred care). We outline the mechanisms and methodologies utilized and explain the outcomes, insights and impact of this research, supported by real world examples extending from Australian to global settings.

How Low Back Pain is Managed-A Mixed-Methods Study in 32 Countries. Part 2 of Low Back Pain in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Series

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Low Back Pain (LBP) Series highlighted the lack of LBP data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to describe (1) what LBP care is currently delivered in LMICs and (2) how that care is delivered. DESIGN: An online mixed-methods study. METHODS: A Consortium for LBP in LMICs (n = 65) was developed with an expert panel of leading LBP researchers (>2 publications on LBP) and multidisciplinary clinicians and patient partners with 5 years of clinical/lived LBP experience in LMICs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently analyzed qualitative data using inductive and deductive coding and developed a thematic framework. RESULTS: Forty-seven (85%) of 55 invited panel members representing 32 LMICs completed the survey (38% women, 62% men). The panel included clinicians (34%), researchers (28%), educators (6%), and people with lived experience (4%). Pharmacotherapies and electrophysiological agents were the most used LBP treatments. The thematic framework comprised 8 themes: (1) self-management is ubiquitous, (2) medicines are the cornerstone, (3) traditional therapies have a place, (4) society plays an important role, (5) imaging use is very common, (6) reliance on passive approaches, (7) social determinants influence LBP care pathway, and (8) health systems are ill-prepared to address LBP burden. CONCLUSION: LBP care in LMICs did not consistently align with the best available evidence. Findings will help research prioritization in LMICs and guide global LBP clinical guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(8):560-572. Epub 11 April 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12406.

Musculoskeletal health: an ecological study assessing disease burden and research funding

Background

Exacerbated by an aging population, musculoskeletal diseases are a chronic and growing problem in the United States that impose significant health and economic burdens. The objective of this study was to analyze the correlation between the burden of diseases and the federal funds assigned to health-related research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Methods

An ecological study design was used to examine the relationship between NIH research funding and disease burden for 60 disease categories. We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019 to measure disease burden and the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data to identify 60 disease categories aligned with available GBD data. NIH funding data was obtained from the RCDC system and the NIH Office of Budget. Using linear regression models, we observed that musculoskeletal diseases were among the most underfunded (i.e., negative residuals from the model) with respect to disease burden.

Findings

Musculoskeletal diseases were underfunded, with neck pain being the most underfunded at only 0.83% of expected funding. Low back pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were also underfunded at 13.88%, 35.08%, and 66.26%, respectively. Musculoskeletal diseases were the leading cause of years lived with disability and the third leading cause in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years. Despite the increasing burden of these diseases, the allocation of NIH funding to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) has remained low compared to other institutes.

Interpretation

Despite the increasing health burden and economic cost of $980 billion annually, the allocation of NIH funding to the NIAMS has remained low compared to other institutes. These findings suggest that the NIH may need to reassess its allocation of research funding to align with the current health challenges of our country. Furthermore, these clinically relevant observations highlight the need to increase research funding for musculoskeletal diseases and improve their prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Funding

No funding.

'It's about time'. Dissemination and evaluation of a global health systems strengthening roadmap for musculoskeletal health - insights and future directions

Actions towards the health-related Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 typically focus on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) associated with premature mortality, with less emphasis on NCDs associated with disability, such as musculoskeletal conditions-the leading contributor to the global burden of disability. Can systems strengthening priorities for an underprioritised NCD be codesigned, disseminated and evaluated? A 'roadmap' for strengthening global health systems for improved musculoskeletal health was launched in 2021. In this practice paper, we outline dissemination efforts for this Roadmap and insights on evaluating its reach, user experience and early adoption. A global network of 22 dissemination partners was established to drive dissemination efforts, focussing on Africa, Asia and Latin America, each supported with a suite of dissemination assets. Within a 6-month evaluation window, 52 Twitter posts were distributed, 2195 visitors from 109 countries accessed the online multilingual Roadmap and 138 downloads of the Roadmap per month were recorded. Among 254 end users who answered a user-experience survey, respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' the Roadmap was valuable (88.3%), credible (91.2%), useful (90.1%) and usable (85.4%). Most (77.8%) agreed or strongly agreed they would adopt the Roadmap in some way. Collection of real-world adoption case studies allowed unique insights into adoption practices in different contexts, settings and health system levels. Diversity in adoption examples suggests that the Roadmap has value and adoption potential at multiple touchpoints within health systems globally. With resourcing, harnessing an engaged global community and establishing a global network of partners, a systems strengthening tool can be cocreated, disseminated and formatively evaluated.