MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408409009 · doi:10.1186/s12998-025-00576-1

Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol

2025· article· en· W4408409009 on OpenAlexafffundabout
André Bussières, Steven Passmore, Deborah Kopansky-Giles, Patrícia Tavares, Jennifer Ward, Jacqueline Ladwig, Cheryl M. Glazebrook, Silvano Mior, Melissa Atkinson-Graham, Jean Moss, Nicole Robak, Elena Broeckelmann, David A. Monias, Donnie McKay, Helga Hamilton, Muriel Scott, Randall Smolinski, Eric L. Hurwitz, Anthony D. Woolf, Michael P. Johnson, Melinda Fowler-Woods, Scott Haldeman

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Manual Therapies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' AssociationUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoCARE CanadaUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresOntario Tech UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersHealth CanadaSkoll FoundationCanadian Chiropractic AssociationHealthcare Excellence CanadaStrong
KeywordsMedicineIndigenousHealth careParticipatory action researchObservational studyNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world. METHODS: The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada. DESIGN: Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program. DISCUSSION: Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.

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)0.023
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.388 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & Manual TherapiesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207