PURPOSE: Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military service among active duty military personnel. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases (inception-April 2020) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case–control studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Eligible studies were independently critically appraised by paired reviewers and a descriptive synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: We screened 1981 records, reviewed 118 full-text articles, and synthesised data from eight acceptable quality cohort studies. Studies assessed physical (n = 4), sociodemographic (n = 2), and/or occupational factors (n = 5) associated with LBP. Two studies reported prior LBP was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of LBP compared to those without prior LBP. Other factors consistently associated with LBP included previous musculoskeletal injury (n = 2), less time spent on physical training (n = 2), female sex (n = 2), and lower rank (n = 2). Factors associated with LBP from single studies included marital status, lower education level, blast injury, job duties, and service type. We found inconsistent associations for performance on physical fitness tests, age, and occupation type. Psychological risk factors were not assessed in any included studies. CONCLUSION: In active duty personnel, prior history of LBP, previous musculoskeletal injury, less time in physical training, female sex, and lower rank were consistent risk factors for LBP. This information is relevant for researchers, active duty military personnel, and other decision makers. Future studies should explore causal relationships for LBP in this population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084549. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-021-00409-x.
PurposeMany employers struggle with how to have a disability disclosure discussion with their employees and job candidates. The primary purpose of this study was to identify issues relevant to disability disclosure discussions. In addition, we explored how simulations, as an educational tool, may help employers and managers.Design/methodology/approachSeven participants (four employers and three human resource professionals) took part in this study. We used a qualitative design that involved two focus group discussions to understand participants' experiences of building a simulation training scenario that focused on how to have a disability disclosure discussion. The simulation sessions were audio-recorded and analyzed using an open-coding thematic approach.FindingsFour main themes emerged from our analysis. Three themes focused on issues that participants identified as relevant to the disability disclosure process, including: (1) creating a comfortable and safe space for employees to disclose, (2) how to ask employees or job candidates about disability and (3) how to respond to employees disability disclosure. A fourth theme focused on how simulations could be relevant as an educational tool.Originality/valueDeveloping a simulation on disability disclosure discussions is a novel approach to educating employers and managers that has the potential to help enhance diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Further, the process that we followed can be used as a model for other researchers seeking to develop educational training scenarios on sensitive diversity and inclusion topics.
In: Stochkendahl , M J , Rezai , M , Torres , P , Sutton , D , Tuchin , P , Brown , R & Côté , P 2019 , ' The chiropractic workforce : a global review ' , Chiropractic & Manual Therapies , vol. 27 , 36 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-019-0255-x
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.
In: Côté , P , Hartvigsen , J , Leboeuf-Yde , C , Corso , M , Shearer , H , Wong , J , Marchand , A-A , French , S , Kawchuk , G N , Mior , S , Poulsen , E , Srbely , J , Ammendolia , C , Blanchette , M-A , Busse , J W , Bussières , A , Cancelliere , C , Christensen , H W , De Carvalho , D , De Luca , K , Du Rose , A , Eklund , A , Engel , R , Goncalves , G , Hebert , J , Hincapié , C A , Kimpton , A , Lauridsen , H H , Innes , S , Meyer , A-L , Newell , D , O'Neill , S , Pagé , I , Passmore , S , Perle , S M , Quon , J , Rezai , M , Stupar , M , Swain , M , Vitello , A , Weber , K , Young , K J & Yu , H 2021 , ' The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature ' , Chiropractic & Manual Therapies , vol. 29 , 8 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9
Background: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit: The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Abstract Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
In: Côté , P , Bussières , A , Cassidy , J D , Hartvigsen , J , Kawchuk , G N , Leboeuf-Yde , C , Mior , S , Schneider , M , Aillet , L , Ammendolia , C , Arnbak , B , Axen , I , Baechler , M , Barbier-Cazorla , F , Barbier , G , Bergstrøm , C , Beynon , A , Blanchette , M A , Bolton , P S , Breen , A , Brinch , J , Bronfort , G , Brown , B , Bruno , P , Konner , M B , Burrell , C , Busse , J W , Byfield , D , Campello , M , Cancelliere , C , Carroll , L , Cedraschi , C , Chéron , C , Chow , N , Christensen , H W , Claussen , S , Corso , M , Davis , M A , Demortier , M , De Carvalho , D , De Luca , K , De Zoete , A , Doktor , K , Downie , A , Du Rose , A , Eklund , A , Engel , R , Erwin , M , Eubanks , J E , Evans , R , Evans , W , Fernandez , M , Field , J , Fournier , G , French , S , Fuglkjaer , S , Gagey , O , Giuriato , R , Gliedt , J A , Goertz , C , Goncalves , G , Grondin , D , Gurden , M , Haas , M , Haldeman , S , Harsted , S , Hartvigsen , L , Hayden , J , Hincapié , C , Hébert , J J , Hesby , B , Hestbæk , L , Hogg-Johnson , S , Hondras , M A , Honoré , M , Howarth , S , Injeyan , H S , Innes , S , Irgens , P M , Jacobs , C , Jenkins , H , Jenks , A , Jensen , T S , Johhansson , M , Kongsted , A , Kopansky-Giles , D , Kryger , R , Lardon , A , Lauridsen , H H , Leininger , B , Lemeunier , N , Le Scanff , C , Lewis , E A , Linaker , K , Lothe , L , Marchand , A A , McNaughton , D , Meyer , A L , Miller , P , Mølgaard , A , Moore , C , Murphy , D R , Myburgh , C , Myhrvold , B , Newell , D , Newton , G , Nim , C , Nordin , M , Nyiro , L , O'Neill , S , Øverås , C , Pagé , I , Pasquier , M , Penza , C W , Perle , S M , Picchiottino , M , Piché , M , Poulsen , E , Quon , J , Raven , T , Rezai , M , Roseen , E J , Rubinstein , S , Salmi , L R , Schweinhardt , P , Shearer , H M , Sirucek , L , Sorondo , D , Stern , P J , Stevans , J , Stochkendahl , M J , Stuber , K , Stupar , M , Srbely , J , Swain , M , Teodorczyk-Injeyan , J , Théroux , J , Thiel , H , Uhrenholt , L , Verbeek , A , Verville , L , Vincent , K , Dan Wang , A L , Weber , K A , Whedon , J M , Wong , J , Wuytack , F , Young , J , Yu , H & Ziegler , D 2020 , ' A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity ' , Chiropractic and Manual Therapies , vol. 28 , no. 1 , 21 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x
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.