Suchergebnisse

AbstractIndividuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience high rates of overweight and obesity. Accurate height and weight data is needed to determine overweight and obesity, but direct measurement is not always feasible in large samples. In the general population, overweight and obesity prevalence studies have validated adult self‐reported height and weight, but this has not been done for adults with ID. The objectives of this study were to determine the validity of self‐reported height, weight, and derived body mass index (BMI), and to determine the diagnostic accuracy of derived BMI to identify overweight and obesity. Self‐reported height and weight were collected from 40 adult Special Olympics participants. The validity of self‐reported height and weight was determined by comparing them to measured height and weight. The differences between self‐reported and measured height, weight, and derived BMI were not significantly different; however, these findings were derived from results with wide confidence intervals. A high percentage of study participants correctly classified themselves as overweight/obese (sensitivity = 92.9%). This exploratory study encourages self‐reports and inclusion of individuals with ID in epidemiological studies, but requires further examination with a larger sample.

BackgroundOverweight and obesity are common in adults with intellectual disabilities, which complicates their health. To meet their health needs, individuals with intellectual disability frequently rely on proxies to answer questions on their behalf. In the general population, the use of proxy‐reported height and weight to compute body mass index (BMI) has been validated, but not among adults with intellectual disability. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of proxy‐reported height, weight and derived BMI among adults with intellectual disability.MethodsProxies were asked to report height and weight on behalf of adults with intellectual disability who participate in Special Olympics Ontario; their answers were compared to measured height and weight.ResultsProxies reported height and weight accurately; the sensitivity of proxy reports for classifying individuals with intellectual disability as overweight and/or obese was 84.6%.ConclusionProxy reports may be useful when direct measurements of individuals with intellectual disability are not available.

BACKGROUND: Patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) have a generally favourable prognosis, yet some develop longstanding pain and disability. Predicting who will recover from WAD shortly after a traffic collision is very challenging for health care providers such as physical therapists. Therefore, we aimed to develop a prediction model for the recovery of WAD in a cohort of patients who consulted physical therapists within six weeks after the injury. METHODS: Our cohort included 680 adult patients with WAD who were injured in Saskatchewan, Canada, between 1997 and 1999. All patients had consulted a physical therapist as a result of the injury. Baseline prognostic factors were collected from an injury questionnaire administered by Saskatchewan Government Insurance. The outcome, global self-perceived recovery, was assessed by telephone interviews six weeks, three and six months later. Twenty-five possible baseline prognostic factors were considered in the analyses. A prediction model was built using Cox regression. The predictive ability of the model was estimated with concordance statistics (c-index). Internal validity was checked using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Our final prediction model included: age, number of days to reporting the collision, neck pain intensity, low back pain intensity, pain other than neck and back pain, headache before collision and recovery expectations. The model had an acceptable level of predictive ability with a c-index of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.71). Internal validation showed that our model was robust and had a good fit. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a model predicting recovery from WAD, in a cohort of patients who consulted physical therapists. Our model has adequate predictive ability. However, to be fully incorporated in clinical practice the model needs to be validated in other populations and tested in clinical settings.

Background: The world is faced with a chronic shortage of health workers, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated a global shortage of 7.2 million health workers resulting in large gaps in service provision for people with disability. The magnitude of the unmet needs, especially within musculoskeletal conditions, is not well established as global data on health work resources are scarce. Methods: We conducted an international, cross-sectional survey of all 193 United Nation member countries and seven dependencies to describe the global chiropractic workforce in terms of the availability (numbers and where they are practising), quality (education and licensing), accessibility (entry and reimbursement), and acceptability (scope of practice and legal rights). An electronic survey was issued to contact persons of constituent member associations of the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC). In addition, data were collected from government websites, personal communication and internet searches. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Worldwide density maps of the distribution of numbers of chiropractors and providers of chiropractic education were graphically presented. Results: Information was available from 90 countries in which at least one chiropractor was present. The total number of chiropractors worldwide was 103,469. The number of chiropractors per country ranged from 1 to 77,000 (median = 10; IQR = [4-113]). Chiropractic education was offered in 48 institutions in 19 countries. Direct access to chiropractic services was available in 81 (90%) countries, and services were partially or fully covered by government and/or private health schemes in 46 (51.1%) countries. The practice of chiropractic was legally recognized in 68 (75.6%) of the 90 countries. It was explicitly illegal in 12 (13.3%) countries. Conclusion: We have provided information about the global chiropractic workforce. The profession is represented in 90 countries, but the distribution of chiropractors and chiropractic educational institutions, and governing legislations and regulations largely favour high-income countries. There is a large under-representation in low- and middle-income countries in terms of provision of services, education and legislative and regulatory frameworks, and the available data from these countries are limited.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

Background: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. Main body: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. Conclusion: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system.

LAY SUMMARY Spinal pain is responsible for a large proportion of pain and disability in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The authors developed and implemented a program of care (PoC) that included communication strategies and care pathways supporting chiropractic care for CAF personnel with spine-related problems. The authors tested the feasibility of implementing the PoC on two select CAF bases and found that it was feasible to implement, with a high rate of completion of patient outcomes, adherence to clinical pathways, and enhanced interprofessional communication and reporting. Participants reported satisfaction with the program. Successful implementation of a PoC could provide guidance and support for interprofessional collaborative care for CAF personnel with spine-related pain.

Whiplash injury affects 83% of persons in a traffic collision and leads to whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). A major challenge facing health care decision makers is identifying cost-effective interventions due to lack of economic evidence. Our objective is to compare the cost-effectiveness of: 1) physician-based education and activation, 2) a rehabilitation program developed by Aviva Canada (a group of property and casualty insurance providers), and 3) the legislated standard of care in the Canadian province of Ontario: the Pre-approved Framework Guideline for Whiplash developed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. RESULTS: The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (Χ2=3.96; 2 df: p=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00546806.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-regulated rehabilitation guideline compared with education and activation by general practitioners, and to a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation programme on self-reported global recovery from acute whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) grade I-II. Design Pragmatic randomised clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. Setting Multidisciplinary rehabilitation clinics and general practitioners in Ontario, Canada. Participants 340 participants with acute WAD grade I and II. Potential participants were sampled from a large automobile insurer when reporting a traffic injury. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive one of three protocols: Government-regulated rehabilitation guideline, education and activation by general practitioners or a preferred-provider insurance-based rehabilitation. Primary and secondary outcome measures Our primary outcome was time to self-reported global recovery. Secondary outcomes included time on insurance benefits, neck pain intensity, whiplash-related disability, health-related quality of life and depressive symptomatology at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postinjury. Results The median time to self-reported global recovery was 59 days (95% CI 55 to 68) for the government-regulated guideline group, 105 days (95% CI 61 to 126) for the preferred-provider group and 108 days (95% CI 93 to 206) for the general practitioner group; the difference was not statistically significant (X 2 =3.96; 2 df: P=0.138). We found no clinically important differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Post hoc analysis suggests that the general practitioner (hazard rate ratio (HRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77) and preferred-provider groups (HRR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96) had slower recovery than the government-regulated guideline group during the first 80 days postinjury. No major adverse events were reported. Conclusions Time-to-recovery did not significantly differ across intervention groups. We found no differences between groups with regard to neck-specific outcomes, depression and health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

AbstractIntroductionGuidelines regarding antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in HIV infection have varied over time, with the 2015 World Health Organization recommendation suggesting ART initiation at the time of diagnosis regardless of CD4 T‐cell counts. Herein, we investigated the influence of socio‐demographic and clinical factors in addition to time trends on early ART initiation among participants of the Montreal Primary HIV Infection Study.MethodsThe Montreal Primary HIV Infection Study is a prospective cohort established in three community medical centres (CMCs) and two university medical centres (UMCs). Recently diagnosed HIV‐infected adults were categorized as receiving early (vs. delayed) ART if ART was initiated within 180 days of the baseline visit. Associations between early ART initiation and socio‐demographic, socio‐economic and behavioural information were examined. Independent associations of factors linked with early ART initiation were determined using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 348 participants had a documented date of HIV acquisition of <180 days. The median interquartile range (IQR) age of participants was 35 (28; 42) years and the majority were male (96%), having paid employment (63%), men who have sex with men (MSM) (78%) and one to four sexual partners in the last three months (70%). Participants presented with a median IQR HIV plasma viral load of 4.6 (3.7; 5.3) log10 copies/ml, CD4 count of 510 (387; 660) cells/μl and were recruited in CMCs (52%) or UMCs (48%). Early ART initiation was observed in 47% of the participants and the trend followed a V‐shaped curve with peaks in 1996 to 1997 (89%) and 2013 to 2015 (88%) with a dip in 2007 to 2009 (22%). Multivariable analyses showed that having a paid employment adjusted odds ratio (aOR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.19, 4.95), lower CD4 count (aOR per 50 cell increase: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.99) and care at UMCs (aOR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.06 to 3.90) were independently associated with early ART initiation.ConclusionsEarly ART initiation during primary HIV infection was associated with diminished biological prognostic factors and calendar time mirroring evolution of treatment guidelines. In addition, socio‐economic factors such as having a paid employment, contribute to early ART initiation in the context of universal access to care in Canada.