MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402451881 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1392074

Sociodemographic determinants of health inequities in low back pain: a narrative review

2024· review· en· W4402451881 on OpenAlexaff
Janny Mathieu, Kamille Roy, Marie-Ève Robert, Meriem Akeblersane, Martin Descarreaux, Andrée-Anne Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeHealth equityNarrative reviewMedicineSocial determinants of healthGerontologyPsychologyPublic healthNursingArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health equity is defined as the absence of unjust and avoidable disparities in access to healthcare, quality of care, or health outcomes. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a conceptual framework that outlines the main causes of health inequalities and how these contribute to health inequities within a population. Despite the WHO implementing health equity policies to ensure accessibility and quality of healthcare services, disparities persist in the management of patients suffering from low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to review the existing evidence on the impact of health inequities on the care trajectories and treatments provided to individuals with LBP. Methods: A narrative review was performed, which included a literature search without language and study design restrictions in MEDLINE Ovid database, from January 1, 2000, to May 15, 2023. Search terms included free-text words for the key concepts of "low back pain," "health inequities," "care pathways," and "sociodemographic factors." Results: Studies have revealed a statistically significant association between the prevalence of consultations for LBP and increasing age. Additionally, a significant association between healthcare utilization and gender was found, revealing that women were more likely to seek medical attention for LBP compared to men. Furthermore, notable disparities related to race and ethnicity were identified, more specifically in opioid prescriptions, spinal surgery recommendations, and access to complementary and alternative medical approaches for LBP. A cross-sectional analysis found that non-Hispanic White individuals with chronic LBP were more likely to be prescribed one or more pharmacological treatments. Lower socioeconomic status and level of education, as well as living in lower-income areas were also found to be associated with greater risks of receiving non-guideline concordant care, including opioid and MRI prescriptions, before undergoing any conservative treatments. Conclusion: Persistent inequalities related to sociodemographic determinants significantly influence access to care and care pathways of patients suffering from LBP, underscoring the need for additional measures to achieve equitable health outcomes. Efforts are needed to better understand the needs and expectations of patients suffering from LBP and how their individual characteristics may affect their utilization of healthcare services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207