Dataset Information

International comparisons of the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using population-based healthcare data from England and Sweden.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions as presented in different healthcare systems, and to determine the feasibility of comparing prevalence figures between nations.

Methods

The settings were an English regional database (Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA)) and the Swedish Skåne County Health Care Register. Case definitions, data extraction and analysis procedures were harmonised. The number of people consulting per 10 000 registered population in primary care, and in primary or secondary care, in the year 2010 (annual consultation prevalence) were determined for doctor-diagnosed osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), low back pain, and spondyloarthritis including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Seven-year period consultation prevalences were also determined.

Results

Combining primary and secondary care, annual consultation prevalences of any MSK condition (2143 vs 1610/10 000) and low back pain (587 vs 294/10 000) were higher in England than in Sweden, but higher for RA, spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis in Sweden. Annual primary care prevalence figures for OA (176 vs 196/10 000), RA (25 vs 26/10 000), spondyloarthritis (both 8/10 000) and psoriatic arthritis (5 vs 3/10 000) were similar between England and Sweden. AS was rarely recorded in Swedish primary care. These patterns were also observed for 7-year period consultation prevalences.

Conclusions

A rigorous methodological approach allowed feasible comparison of MSK consultation prevalence between England and Sweden. Differences in prevalence of inflammatory and unspecific pain conditions may be partially explained by known variations in healthcare systems and recording practice. Routine healthcare data offers potential for investigating variations in occurrence and outcome of MSK conditions between nations.

SUBMITTER: Jordan KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3888586 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

International comparisons of the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using population-based healthcare data from England and Sweden.

Jordan Kelvin P KP Jöud Anna A Bergknut Charlotte C Croft Peter P Edwards John J JJ Peat George G Petersson Ingemar F IF Turkiewicz Aleksandra A Wilkie Ross R Englund Martin M

Annals of the rheumatic diseases 20130123 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions as presented in different healthcare systems, and to determine the feasibility of comparing prevalence figures between nations.<h4>Methods</h4>The settings were an English regional database (Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA)) and the Swedish Skåne County Health Care Register. Case definitions, data extraction and analysis procedures were harmonised. The number of people consulting per 10 000 ...[more]

PMID: 23345602

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are a common presentation in primary care. This study sought to determine the prevalence of MSK conditions in primary care in Ontario and to validate the extent to which health administrative date billing codes accurately represent MSK diagnoses.MethodsDe-identified electronic medical records (EMR) from the DELPHI database in southwestern Ontario, which contains 2493 patients (55.6% female, mean age 50.3 years (SD = 22.2)) and 21,964 encounters (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2010) were used for the analyses. Outcomes included: validation measures of agreement between International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnostic codes (health administrative data) and International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) diagnoses defined as the reference standard, time to first ICD-9 code, prevalence, and healthcare utilization.ResultsThere were 2940 true positive MSK encounters with primary care practitioners for 998 patients. Performance of the ICD-9 diagnostic codes included sensitivity = 76.5%, specificity = 95.2%, PPV = 94.6%, and NPV = 78.7%, compared to the ICPC reference standard. The majority of 998 patients were coded with both an ICPC and ICD-9 MSK code at their first or second encounter (67.4%). However, 23.5% of patients with the ICPC reference standard MSK were never coded with ICD-9. Four-year prevalence of MSK was 52.3% and varied by age (4.5% 0-17 years, 20.1% 18-44, 42.7% 45-64, and 32.7% 65+). Patients at MSK encounters had a higher number of: investigations (17.9% compared to 9.1%, p < .0001); referrals (17.6% compared to 14.3%, p < .0001); and prescriptions for opioids (17.2% compared to 5.3%, p < .0001).ConclusionsThis study determined the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions in primary care in Ontario using a reference standard definition. The study highlighted the value of using primary care ICPC codes to validate a definition for musculoskeletal conditions. Health administrative data can be used to ascertain the presence of musculoskeletal conditions; however, ICD-9 codes may underrepresent the prevalence of MSK conditions.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study based on data from 5?years (2008-2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:20?103 adults aged 17-65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18?533). OUTCOME MEASURE:Prevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ?30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population. RESULTS:Obesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95%?CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%,?95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%,?95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46,?95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94,?95% CI 0.74 to 1.18). CONCLUSIONS:High obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

Project description:ObjectivesChronic pain affects 50 million Americans and is often treated with non-pharmacologic approaches like physical therapy. Developing a no-show prediction model for individuals seeking physical therapy care for musculoskeletal conditions has several benefits including enhancement of workforce efficiency without growing the existing provider pool, delivering guideline adherent care, and identifying those that may benefit from telehealth. The objective of this paper was to quantify the national prevalence of no-shows for patients seeking physical therapy care and to identify individual and organizational factors predicting whether a patient will be a no-show when seeking physical therapy care.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingCommercial provider of physical therapy within the United States with 828 clinics across 26 states.ParticipantsAdolescent and adult patients (age cutoffs: 14-117 years) seeking non-pharmacological treatment for musculoskeletal conditions from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017 (n = 542,685). Exclusion criteria were a primary complaint not considered an MSK condition or improbable values for height, weight, or body mass index values. The study included 444,995 individuals.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of no-shows for musculoskeletal conditions and predictors of patient no-show.ResultsIn our population, 73% missed at least 1 appointment for a given physical therapy care episode. Our model had moderate discrimination for no-shows (c-statistic:0.72, all appointments; 0.73, first 7 appointments) and was well calibrated, with predicted and observed no-shows in good agreement. Variables predicting higher no-show rates included insurance type; smoking-status; higher BMI; and more prior cancellations, time between visit and scheduling date, and between current and previous visit.ConclusionsThe high prevalence of no-shows when seeking care for musculoskeletal conditions from physical therapists highlights an inefficiency that, unaddressed, could limit delivery of guideline-adherent care that advocates for earlier use of non-pharmacological treatments for musculoskeletal conditions and result in missed opportunities for using telehealth to deliver physical therapy.

Project description:IntroductionChronic pain affects millions of individuals worldwide. Healthcare provider gender bias in the management of these individuals has societal and individual ramifications. Yet, a thorough and comprehensive literature summary on this topic is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to systematically: (1) identify and map the available scientific and grey literature as it relates to healthcare provider gender bias in the assessment, diagnosis and management of (chronic) musculoskeletal pain and (2) identify current gaps that necessitate further research.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with recent guidelines, and the results will be reported via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The following databases will be searched: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (Ovid), Academic Search Complete (Ebscohost), Pre-Prints Database (National Library of Medicine) and Rehabilitation Reference Center from inception to August 2022. Additionally, relevant grey literature will be identified. All screening will be done by two independent reviewers during two stages: first title/abstract screening followed by full-text screening. Data will be extracted from the bibliometric, study characteristics, and pain science families of variables. Results will be descriptively mapped, and the frequency of concepts, population, characteristics and other details will be narratively reported. Additionally, results will be presented in tabular and graphical form.Ethics and disseminationAs this study will neither involve human subject participation nor utilisation of protected data, ethical approval is not required. This study's methodological approach follows current recommendations. Study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and international peer-review journal publication. In addition, infographics available in English, Spanish and German will be disseminated.Registration detailsThis project will be registered in Open Science Framework prior to data collection.

Dataset Information

International comparisons of the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using population-based healthcare data from England and Sweden.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

International comparisons of the consultation prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions using population-based healthcare data from England and Sweden.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets