Individual recovery expectations and prognosis of outcomes in non-specific low back pain: prognostic factor review.

BackgroundLow back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Exercise therapy is widely recommended to treat persistent non-specific low back pain. While evidence suggests exercise is, on average, moderately effective, there remains uncertainty about which individuals might benefit the most from exercise.MethodsIn parallel with a Cochrane review update, we requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of adults with our two primary outcomes of interest, pain and functional limitations, and calculated global recovery. We compiled a master data set including baseline participant characteristics, exercise and comparison characteristics, and outcomes at short-term, moderate-term and long-term follow-up. We conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis using multilevel mixed-effects regression of the overall treatment effect and prespecified potential treatment effect modifiers.ResultsWe received IPD for 27 trials (3514 participants). For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.7 (−14.1 to –7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) −10.2 (−13.2 to –7.3)) at short-term follow-up. Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers—these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care. This study was limited by inconsistent availability and measurement of participant characteristics.ConclusionsThis study provides potentially useful information to help treat patients and design future studies of exercise interventions that are better matched to specific subgroups.Protocol publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-64

BackgroundIn order to address the opioid crisis in North America, many regions have adopted preventative strategies, such as prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). PDMPs aim to increase patient safety by certifying that opioids are prescribed in appropriate quantities. We aimed to synthesize the literature on changes in opioid-related harms and consequences, an important measure of PDMP effectiveness.MethodsWe completed a systematic review. We conducted a narrative synthesis of opioid-related harms and consequences from PDMP implementation. Outcomes were grouped into categories by theme: opioid dependence, opioid-related care outcomes, opioid-related adverse events, and opioid-related legal and crime outcomes.ResultsWe included a total of 22 studies (49 PDMPs) in our review. Two studies reported on illicit and problematic use but found no significant associations with PDMP status. Eight studies examined the association between PDMP status and opioid-related care outcomes, of which two found that treatment admissions for prescriptions opioids were lower in states with PDMP programs (p < 0.05). Of the thirteen studies that reported on opioid-related adverse events, two found significant (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05) but conflicting results with one finding a decrease in opioid-related overdose deaths after PDMP implementation and the other an increase. Lastly, two studies found no statistically significant association between PDMP status and opioid-related legal and crime outcomes (crime rates, identification of potential dealers, and diversion).ConclusionOur study found limited evidence to support overall associations between PDMPs and reductions in opioid-related consequences. However, this should not detract from the value of PDMPs’ larger role of improving opioid prescribing.

No abstract

Objective To synthesize the literature on the proportion of health care providers who access and use prescription monitoring program data in their practice, as well as associated barriers to the use of such data. Design We performed a systematic review using a standard systematic review method with meta-analysis and qualitative meta-summary. We included full-published peer-reviewed reports of study data, as well as theses and dissertations. Methods We identified relevant quantitative and qualitative studies. We synthesized outcomes related to prescription monitoring program data use (i.e., ever used, frequency of use). We pooled the proportion of health care providers who had ever used prescription monitoring program data by using random effects models, and we used meta-summary methodology to identify prescription monitoring program use barriers. Results Fifty-three studies were included in our review, all from the United States. Of these, 46 reported on prescription monitoring program use and 32 reported on barriers. The pooled proportion of health care providers who had ever used prescription monitoring program data was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.48–0.66). Common barriers to prescription monitoring program data use included time constraints and administrative burdens, low perceived value of prescription monitoring program data, and problems with prescription monitoring program system usability. Conclusions Our study found that health care providers underutilize prescription monitoring program data and that many barriers exist to prescription monitoring program data use.

Within all subgroups of sexual orientation except mostly/completely homosexual girls, SC was protective for symptoms of depression, indicating its potential importance for prevention of depression in all students, including perhaps particularly those with minority orientation.

Alcohol and energy drinks are commonly used substances by youth in Canada, and are often mixed (AmED). While several studies have shown that AmED can have dangerous effects, less well understood is how AmED is associated with driving under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. This study sought to determine whether youth who use AmED were more likely to engage in driving, or being a passenger of a driver, under the influence of alcohol or cannabis compared to youth who use either alcohol or energy drinks alone. This study used data from grade 10-12 students who took part in the 2014/2015 Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (N=17,450). The association of past-year AmED use with past-30day: driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis, and riding with an alcohol- or cannabis-influenced driver, was assessed using logistic regression. One in four youth had consumed AmED in the previous 12months. AmED users were more likely to engage in all risk behaviours except riding with a drinking driver, relative to youth who only consumed alcohol. No association was observed for youth who consumed alcohol and energy drinks on separate occasions. Youth who use AmED demonstrate a higher risk profile for driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis, than youth who use alcohol alone. Future research should explore the biopsychosocial pathways that may explain why using energy drinks enhances the already heightened risk posed by alcohol on other health-related behaviours such as driving under the influence.

No abstract