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

Kopansky-Giles, Deborah; Johnson, Claire; Haldeman, Scott; Chou, Roger; Côté, Pierre; Green, Bart N.; Nordin, Margareta; Acaroğlu, Emre; Ameis, Arthur; Cedraschi, C.; Hurwitz, Eric L.; Ayhan, Selim; Borenstein, David G.; Brady, O’Dane D.; Brooks, Peter; Davatchi, Fereydoun; Dunn, Robert; Goertz, Christine; Hajjaj–Hassouni, N.; Hartvigsen, Jan; Hondras, Maria; Lemeunier, Nadège; Mayer, John M.; Mior, Silvano; Moss, Jean; Mullerpatan, Rajani; Muteti, Elijah; Mwaniki, Lillian; Ngandeu-Singwe, Madeleine; Outerbridge, Geoff; Randhawa, Kristi; Torres, Carlos; Torres, Paola; Vlok, Adriaan; Wong, Chung Chek

doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5725-7

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contemporary evidence also supports the management of LBP within the primary healthcare (PHC) level (Bart et al, ). For example, Kopansky‐Giles et al () argued that patients who received PHC level management for spinal pain have improved outcomes and cost savings. In the Ethiopian healthcare system, the PHC level includes health posts, health centres and primary hospitals (Figure ), which provide health promotion, disease prevention and curative health services, and therefore, may offer an optimal platform for LBP management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of healthcare utilisation for low back pain: A population‐based study in Ethiopia

Beyera

O’Brien

Campbell

2020

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain (LBP) remains one of the major public health problems worldwide. However, in low‐income countries, such as those in Africa, the epidemiological data on healthcare utilisation for LBP are lacking due to more pressing problems such as infectious diseases, to which the majority of health resources are channelled. Therefore, this study aimed at investigating the determinants of healthcare utilisation for LBP in the general population of Ethiopia. A population‐based cross‐sectional study was conducted in South‐West Shewa zone of Ethiopia from June to November 2018. The data were collected by interviewing adults with LBP (n = 1812, randomly selected) using a psychometrically tested and validated instrument, analysed using R version 3.5.1. A log‐binomial regression model was used to determine the prevalence ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in identifying factors associated with healthcare utilisation for LBP. Estimates of population parameters were also presented with 95% CIs and p values. For all applications of inferential statistics, a p value of ≤.05 was taken as the significance level. The lifetime prevalence of healthcare utilisation for LBP was 36.1%, 95% CI: 33.9–38.1, while the annual prevalence rate was 30%, 95% CI: 27.9–32.2. Of those with a 1‐year history of healthcare utilisation, while 7.4%, 95% CI: 4.9–10.3 rural and 36.6%, 95% CI: 29.5–44 urban populations utilised healthcare from general hospitals, 1.4%, 95% CI: 0.3–2.7 rural and 6.8%, 95% CI: 3.1–10.8 urban populations utilised healthcare from specialised hospitals. Several sociodemographic factors, modifiable health behaviours/lifestyle habits, pain interrelated factors, and specific factors such as beliefs about the pain, depressive symptoms and insomnia were associated with healthcare utilisation for LBP. The implications of this research are that it may be prudent for the Ethiopian healthcare policy makers to develop the necessary strategies to meet the health needs of both urban and rural populations with LBP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of healthcare utilisation for low back pain: A population‐based study in Ethiopia

Beyera

O’Brien

Campbell

2020

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The care pathway, however, requires that clinicians who manage people with spine-related symptoms have the knowledge, skills, and resources to apply evidence-based care. The pathway provides a guide to what care should be considered in primary, secondary and tertiary spine care settings [41]. The pathway does not require high cost, high technology interventions for the majority of people who present with spinal concerns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also necessary to determine whether it can be easily administered and utilized by all stakeholders including patients and clinicians. Resources and the implementation of the model of care are described elsewhere [38,41]. The final determination of the value of this care pathway will be its acceptance by patients and clinicians with different expectations or training, the ability to implement the care pathway and the determination as to whether, when implemented, it has the desired outcomes of reduced costs and disability associated with spinal disorders.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Papers [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] were drafted to address these issues and are included in Tables 1 and 2 in the supplemental file (see Online Resource Tables 1 and 2) Participants Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists agreed to participate in the deliberations and serve as authors of one or more of the articles that make up the final GSCI report. See Online Resource Table 3 for the reported conflicts of interest and disclosures from all GSCI authors.…”

Section: Develop a Classification System That Separates Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%