Search

Lise Poisblaud,1,2 Edeltraut Kröger,1– 3 Nathalie Jauvin,4 Julie Pelletier-Jacob,1 Richard E Bélanger,2,5 Guillaume Foldes-Busque,5,6 Michèle Aubin,1,2,5 Pierre Pluye7 ,†Laurence Guillaumie,8 Malek Amiri,8 Pierre Dagenais,9 Clermont E Dionne1,2,5 1Centre d’excellence sur le vieillissement de Québec (CEVQ), Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale (CIUSSSCN), Québec, Quebec, Canada; 2Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada; 3Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada; 4Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec, Quebec, Canada; 5School of Psychology, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada; 6Research Centre, Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux (CISSS) de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, Quebec, Canada; 7Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada; 8Faculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada; 9Faculty of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada†Dr. Pierre Pluye passed away on August 1st 2023Correspondence: Edeltraut Kröger, BPharm, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050 Chemin Ste-Foy, Room L2-30, Québec, Quebec, Canada, G1S 4L8, Tel +1 418 682-7511 extension 84834, Fax +1 418 682-7998, Email Edeltraut.Kroger.ciussscn@ssss.gouv.qc.caObjective: Explore perceptions and preoccupations regarding use of medical cannabis against chronic musculoskeletal pain, among patients and physicians.Design: Qualitative study using interviews with patients and physicians, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).Setting: The study was conducted in Quebec, Canada, in spring 2020.Subjects: We included 27 adult patients and 11 physicians (GPs, anesthesiologists, psychiatrists, and a rheumatologist); the mean age of patients was 48.2 years; 59.3% of patients and 36.4% of physicians were women; 59.3% of patients used no medical cannabis at the time of study; 45.5% of physici

Objective: Evaluate the effect of the Quebec Healthy Enterprise Standard (QHES) on adverse physical and psychosocial work factors and work-related musculoskeletal problems (WMSP). Methods: Workers of ten organizations completed questionnaires before (n=2849) and 2-3 years following (n=2560) QHES implementation. Outcomes were assessed using validated instruments. Results: Workers exposed to adverse physical and psychosocial work factors had a higher prevalence of WMSP. After interventions, the prevalences of one adverse physical and three adverse psychosocial work factors were lower among workers exposed to interventions. Among men exposed to physical and psychosocial interventions, the lower prevalence of neck WMSP is compatible with a beneficial intervention effect. Other results generally showed few effects on WMSP. Conclusions: Results suggest that QHES implementation lead to a decrease in some adverse physical and psychosocial factors. Few effects were observed on WMSP.

Background. Exercise interventions are often incompletely described in reports of clinical trials, hampering evaluation of results and replication and implementation into practice. Objective. The aim of this study was to develop a standardized method for reporting exercise programs in clinical trials: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Design and Methods. Using the EQUATOR Network's methodological framework, 137 exercise experts were invited to participate in a Delphi consensus study. A list of 41 items was identified from a meta-epidemiologic study of 73 systematic reviews of exercise. For each item, participants indicated agreement on an 11-point rating scale. Consensus for item inclusion was defined a priori as greater than 70% agreement of respondents rating an item 7 or above. Three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires and a Delphi workshop were used. Results, There were 57 (response rate=42%), 54 (response rate=95%), and 49 (response rate=91%) respondents to rounds 1 through 3, respectively, from 11 countries and a range of disciplines. In round 1, 2 items were excluded; 24 items reached consensus for inclusion (8 items accepted in original format), and 16 items were revised in response to participant suggestions. Of 14 items in round 2, 3 were excluded, 11 reached consensus for inclusion (4, items accepted in original format), and 7 were reworded. Sixteen items were included in round 3, and all items reached greater than 70% consensus for inclusion. Limitations. The views of included Delphi panelists may differ from those of experts who declined participation and may not fully represent the views of all exercise experts. Conclusions. The CERT, a 16-item checklist developed by an international panel of exercise experts, is designed to improve the reporting of exercise programs in all evaluative study designs and contains 7 categories: materials, provider, delivery, location, dosage, tailoring, and compliance. The CERT will enc

Introduction: While the importance and magnitude of the burden of low back pain upon the individual is well recognized, a systematic understanding of the impact of the condition on individuals is currently hampered by the lack of an organized understanding of what aspects of a person’s life are affected and the lack of comprehensive measures for these effects. The aim of the present study was to develop a conceptual and measurement model of the overall burden of low back pain from the individual’s perspective using a validity-driven approach. Methods: To define the breadth of low back pain burden we conducted three concept-mapping workshops to generate an item pool. Two face-to-face workshops (Australia) were conducted with people with low back pain and clinicians and policy-makers, respectively. A third workshop (USA) was held with international multidisciplinary experts. Multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, participant input and thematic analyses organized participants’ ideas into clusters of ideas that then informed the conceptual model. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine statements were generated. Considerable overlap was observed between groups, and four major clusters were observed - Psychosocial, Physical, Treatment and Employment - each with between two and six subclusters. Content analysis revealed that elements of the Psychosocial cluster were sufficiently distinct to be split into Psychological and Social, and a further cluster of elements termed Positive Effects also emerged. Finally, a hypothesized structure was proposed with six domains and 16 subdomains. New domains not previously considered in the back pain field emerged for psychometric verification: loss of independence, worry about the future, and negative or discriminatory actions by others. Conclusions: Using a grounded approach, an explicit a priori and testable model of the overall burden of low back pain has been proposed t

STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi study conducted with 28 experts in back pain research from 12 countries. OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized definitions of low back pain that could be consistently used by investigators in prevalence studies to provide comparable data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Differences in the definition of back pain prevalence in population studies lead to heterogeneity in study findings, and limitations or impossibilities in comparing or summarizing prevalence figures from different studies. METHODS: Back pain definitions were identified from 51 articles reporting population-based prevalence studies, and dissected into 77 items documenting 7 elements. These items were submitted to a panel of experts for rating and reduction, in 3 rounds (participation: 76%). Preliminary results were presented and discussed during the Amsterdam Forum VIII for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, compared with scientific evidence and confirmed and fine-tuned by the panel in a fourth round and the preparation of the current article. RESULTS: Two definitions were agreed on a minimal definition (with 1 question covering site of low back pain, symptoms observed, and time frame of the measure, and a second question on severity of low back pain) and an optimal definition that is made from the minimal definition and add-ons (covering frequency and duration of symptoms, an additional measure of severity, sciatica, and exclusions) that can be adapted to different needs. CONCLUSION: These definitions provide standards that may improve future comparisons of low back pain prevalence figures by person, place and time characteristics, and offer opportunities for statistical summaries.