Search

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusionsSystematic review and meta-analysis to examine common static postural parameters between participants with and without low back pain (LBP).Systematic search on the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and SCOPUS databases using keywords ‘posture’ and ‘low back pain’. Observational studies comparing static postural outcomes (e.g. lumbar lordosis) between participants with and without LBP were included. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools.Studies included in review = 46 (5,097 LBP; 6,974 controls); meta-analysis = 36 (3,617 LBP; 4,323 controls). Quality of included studies was mixed. Pelvic tilt was statistically significantly higher in participants with LBP compared to controls (n = 23; 2,540 LBP; 3,090 controls; SMD:0.23, 95%CI:0.10,0.35, p < 0.01, I2=72%). Lumbar lordosis and sacral slope may be lower in participants with LBP; pelvic incidence may be higher in this group; both were not statistically significant and the between study heterogeneity was high. Thoracic kyphosis and leg length discrepancy showed no difference between groups.Lumbopelvic mechanisms may be altered in people with LBP, but no firm conclusions could be made. Pelvic tilt appeared to be increased in participants with LBP. Postural variable measurement needs standardisation. Better reporting of study characteristics is warranted.Implications for rehabilitationLumbo pelvic parameters especially pelvic tilt may be altered in people with low back pain, although no firm conclusion could be made due to the high heterogeneity between studies.Postural assessment within low back pain rehabilitation may therefore require an individualistic approach.Lumbo pelvic parameters especially pelvic tilt may be altered in people with low back pain, although no firm conclusion could be made due to the high heterogeneity between studies.Postural assessment within low back pain rehabilitation may therefore require an individualistic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2022, England embarked on an ambitious and innovative re-organisation to produce an integrated health and care system with a greater focus on improving population health. This study aimed to understand how nascent ICSs are developing and to identify the key challenges and enablers to integration. Methods: Four ICSs participated in the study between November 2021 and May 2022. Semi-structured interviews with system leaders (n = 67) from health, social and voluntary care as well as representatives of local communities were held. A thematic framework approach supported by Leutz's five laws of integration framework was used to analyse the data. Results: The benefits of ICSs include enhancing the delivery of good quality care, improving population health and providing more person-centred care in the community. However, differences between health and social care such as accountability, organisational/professional cultures, risks of duplicating efforts, tensions over funding allocation, issues of data integration and struggles in engaging local communities threaten to hamper integration. Conclusions: Despite ICS's investing in the structural and relational components of integrated care, the unprecedented pressures on systems to reduce demand on primary and emergency care tackling elective backlogs may detract from a key goal of ICSs, improving population health and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A lifelong gluten-free diet is the only treatment for coeliac disease. The cost and availability of gluten-free substitute food (GFSF) remain challenging. Some local areas in England have stopped gluten-free prescriptions for coeliac disease. The aim of this paper is to present the quantitative findings of the financial impact of prescription withdrawal on people with coeliac disease. Methods: A cross-sectional survey with adults in England who reported having been diagnosed with coeliac disease by a health professional. The postal survey was distributed by Coeliac UK to their members in 13 prescribing and 13 non-prescribing local areas that were matched for geographical location and level of deprivation. Additionally, an advertisement for the survey was placed on social media. The questionnaire contained items on the availability and use of prescriptions; the weekly amount spent on GFSF; amount of specific GFSF bought; affordability of GFSF; demographics and health-related variables. Data were analysed by descriptive statistics, analysis of variance and regression analysis. Results: Of the 1697 participants, 809 resided in areas that provided prescriptions and 888 in non-prescribing areas. Participants self-report of their prescription did not always match the local area prescription policy. There was no statistically significant difference between prescribing and non-prescribing areas in how easy or difficult participants found it to obtain GFSF (p = 0.644) and its availability in various locations. Participants in non-prescribing areas purchased most types of GFSF items in statistically significantly higher quantities and thereby spent an additional £11.32/month on GFSF items than participants in prescribing areas (p < 0.001). While taking into account the self-reported prescription status, the amount increased to £14.09/month (p < 0.001). Although affordability to buy GFSF did not differ based on local area prescription policy or self-reported prescription status, it was dependent on equivalised annual income. However, affordability did not influence spending on GFSF. Regression analysis indicated that males and households with additional members with coeliac disease spent more on GFSF. Conclusions: The study has highlighted that gluten-free prescription withdrawal can have financial implications for people with coeliac disease. Any future changes to the prescription policy of GFSF should consider the impact on the population, especially lower income households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Person Centred Coordinated Care (P3C) is a UK priority for patients, carers, professionals, commissioners and policy makers. Services are developing a range of approaches to deliver this care with a lack of tools to guide implementation. Methodology: A scoping review and critical examination of current policy, key literature and NHS guidelines, together with stakeholder involvement led to the identification of domains, subdomains and component activities (processes and behaviours) required to deliver P3C. These were validated through codesign with stakeholders via a series of workshops and cognitive interviews. Results: Six core domains of P3C were identified as follows: (i) my goals, (ii) care planning, (iii) transitions, (iv) decision making (v), information and communication and (vi) organizational support activities. These were populated by 29 core subdomains (question items). A number of response codes (components) to each question provide examples of the processes and activities that can be actioned to achieve each core subdomain of P3C. Conclusion: The P3C‐OCT provides a coherent approach to monitoring progress and supporting practice development towards P3C. It can be used to generate a shared understanding of the core domains of P3C at a service delivery level, and support reorganization of care for those with complex needs. The tool can reliably detect change over time, as demonstrated in a sample of 40 UK general practices. It is currently being used in four UK evaluations of new models of care and being further developed as a training tool for the delivery of P3C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]