MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070624790

Prevalence and management of musculoskeletal pain in rural communities

2022· dissertation· en· W7070624790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMusculoskeletal painOdds ratioRural areaPopulationConfidence intervalEpidemiologyPrevalenceOdds
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general aim of this thesis was to investigate the prevalence and management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions, such as low back pain and knee pain, in rural and remote communities. This thesis included one systematic review with a meta-analysis of observational studies, reported in Chapter Two, that compared the prevalence of physical activity, physical inactivity, and sedentary behaviour in a population of rural and urban Australian adults. Twenty-eight studies reporting data on a total of 515,532 people were included and found that the prevalence of physical inactivity was higher in rural populations (prevalence difference 4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 8%), but the prevalence of physical activity was similar in both rural and urban populations (prevalence difference 1%; 95% CI = -3% to 5%). The implications of the study call to action to reduce the urban-rural inequality of different factors that are associated with physical inactivity, such as the promotion of current guidelines focused on leisure physical activity, and adequate infrastructure for the safe practice of sports and exercise.
\n
\nThe systematic review reported in Chapter Three includes a meta-analysis of observational studies reporting on the worldwide prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions, such as back, knee, hip, and shoulder pain in rural compared to urban populations. The review included 42 studies from 24 countries with a total sample of 489,439 people, and the results indicated that hip (mean odds ratio [OR]=1.62; 95% CI=1.23 to 2.15), shoulder (OR=1.42; 95% CI=1.06 to 1.90), and overall musculoskeletal pain ([OR]=1.26, 95% [CI]= 1.08 to 1.47; n=302,911) were more prevalent in rural compared to urban populations. Similarly, although not statistically significant, back (OR=1.18, 95% CI=0.97 to 1.43; n=225,950), and knee pain (OR=1.13; 95% CI=0.83 to 1.52), but not neck pain (OR= 0.89; 95% CI=0.60 to 1.32), were more prevalent in rural compared to urban populations. Interestingly, the meta-analysis showed that adults in rural areas were less likely to seek treatment for musculoskeletal conditions than their urban counterparts (OR= 0.76; 95% CI=0.55 to 1.03).
\n
\nLastly, a randomised controlled trial that included 156 participants was conducted and reported in Chapters Four and Five of this thesis. The trial aimed to assess the effectiveness of a physiotherapist delivered real-time eHealth intervention including a physical activity plan and a personalised resistance training program, compared with usual care on physical function in adults with chronic non-specific low back pain or knee osteoarthritis in rural Australia. The primary outcome of physical function was assessed with the Patient-Specific Functional Scale, which ranges from 0 to 30, with higher values indicating better levels of function. The secondary outcome of disability was assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire in participants with low back pain, which ranges from 0 to 24 with lower scores indicating lower disability, or with the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index in participants with knee osteoarthritis, which ranges from 0 to 68 (function section) with lower scores indicating lower disability. Health-related quality of life was measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life 8D instrument, which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life.
\n
\nThe findings reported in Chapter Five showed that the eHealth intervention provided greater clinically significant benefits in physical function at three months (mean between-group difference 3.63; 95% CI= 1.31 to 5.94), and at six months (mean between-group difference: 3.59; 95%CI= 1.14 to 6.05) compared to usual care. Disability (mean between-group difference 7.26; 95%CI= 2.14 to 12.38), and quality of life (mean between-group difference 4.51; 95%CI= 0.01 to 9.01) were statistically significantly higher in the eHealth intervention group at the three-month follow-up. No other between-group differences were found for the remaining outcomes or follow-ups. Results of this study showed that an eHealth intervention is effective to improve physical function, and can potentially complement and enhance face-to-face consultations, for people suffering from musculoskeletal pain in rural communities. These findings are important to inform rural and primary healthcare policy and clinical practice in Australia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney)Same topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207