Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal injuries (MSI) are common and affect readiness in Navy active-duty service members (ADSM). Patients receive high quality medical care through their Navy Medical Center but may not always access the care they need. Understanding perceived barriers to care for MSI could guide modifications to policy and delivery of health care to better support operational readiness. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:All ADSM presenting to a Navy medical clinic for MSI between December 2021 and August 2023 were included in recruitment efforts. As part of a larger study, participants completed a series of baseline questionnaires following initial PT evaluation. This paper reports on responses to an open-ended query regarding perceived barriers to care. Responses were reviewed by three of the investigators and categories and subcategories of barriers were created by consensus. RESULTS:Two hundred fifty-six participants responded to the study question. Fifty one percent listed at least one barrier to treatment, 43% replied "none" or "NA" and 5.8% left the response field blank. Of the 51% who answered affirmatively, 9 (6.5%) listed two barriers. Responses comprised five categories and eight subcategories of barriers. They were Working Conditions 35%, with subcategories: work schedule conflicts, staffing deficits in unit, strenuous work demands, travel to treatment time, Unit Attitudes 25%, with subcategories: lack of supervisor/CoC support, lack of coworkers support, Health Care Conditions 27%, with subcategories: lack of available appointments, concerns about appropriate care, Policies and Procedures of the DoD 5%, and Personal Issues 1.4%. CONCLUSIONS:Over half of participants surveyed reported an obstacle to receiving care perceived necessary to resolve their MSI. Main concerns were factors related to work duties, attitudes of superiors or coworkers and the health care delivery system. Understanding patient-perceived obstacles to care can shed light on ways to improve patient outcomes.

Spine disorders remain a leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting over 900 million people and creating profound social and economic burden. In response, SPINE20, a global alliance of 38 professional societies, presents its 2025 policy recommendations under the theme "Sustainable Spine Care for All". Main recommendation; SPINE20 recommends G20 countries to implement sustainable evidence-based spine care models drawing on successful global programs considering particularly registries, incentivized health targets and public-private partnerships. Focused on "Public health"; SPINE20 recommends G20 countries to integrate spine health into public health and primary care health policies by addressing the prevention and management of both communicable and non-communicable diseases, and strengthening public-private partnerships to achieve sustainable spine care. Focused on "Occupational Health & Safety Policy"; SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries implement evidence-informed, work-focused interventions that address employee and workforce factors early, to reduce the social and economic impact of work loss and increase employability for people with spine disorders. Focused on "Capacity Building"; SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize building capacity in spinal cord injury care by adopting evidence-based interventions such as the global initiatives supported by World Health Organization (WHO) in low- and middle-income countries and aligned with the WHO Rehabilitation 2030 Call to Action. This paper serves as a summary of the recommendations. The complete set of SPINE20 2025 Recommendations, which is available in SPINE20 official web-site (https://spine20.net), was officially presented to Provincial Minister of Health and Wellness, Western Cape Government, during the SPINE20 Summit 2025. An official communication from the Western Cape Ministry of Health and Wellness subsequently confirmed formal acknowledgment of receipt of the recommendations.

Spine disorders are the leading cause of disability worldwide. To promote social inclusion, it is essential to ensure that people can participate in their societies by improving their ability, opportunities, and dignity, through access to high-quality, evidence-based, and affordable spine services for all.To achieve this goal, SPINE20 recommends six actions.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based education to the community health workers and primary care clinicians to promote best practice for spine health, especially in underserved communities.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based, high-quality, cost-effective spine care interventions that are accessible, affordable and beneficial to patients.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries invest in Health Policy and System Research (HPSR) to generate evidence to develop and implement policies aimed at integrating rehabilitation in primary care to improve spine health.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries support ongoing research initiatives on digital technologies including artificial intelligence, regulate digital technologies, and promote evidence-based, ethical digital solutions in all aspects of spine care, to enrich patient care with high value and quality.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize social inclusion by promoting equitable access to comprehensive spine care through collaborations with healthcare providers, policymakers, and community organizations.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize spine health to improve the well-being and productivity of their populations. Government health systems are expected to create a healthier, more productive, and equitable society for all through collaborative efforts and sustained investment in evidence-based care and promotion of spine health.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) are a leading cause of separation from the U.S. Navy. Data have shown that several psychological responses to MSI are associated with treatment outcomes. Yellow flags are maladaptive psychological responses to injury and predict delayed recovery, whereas pink flags indicate resilience after MSI and are associated with good treatment outcomes. Identifying these factors in patients with MSI would permit early targeted care to address factors that may delay their readiness for deployment and enhance factors that support recovery. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Active duty service members with MSI who reported to physical therapy outpatient services at a naval hospital were recruited for the study. Yellow flags were assessed at baseline as part of a larger study. Participants completed the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (with two subscales, physical activity and work), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Clinically relevant cut-off scores were used to indicate risk factors of delayed recovery. Pink flags were assessed with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and a measure of positive outcome expectations for recovery. RESULTS:Two hundred and ninety participants responded to some or all of the questionnaires. Of these, 82% exceeded the cut-off scores on the physical activity subscale of the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and 39% did so on the work subscale. Pain catastrophizing exceeded the cut-off in only 4.9% of the sample. Forty-three percent of these exceeded the cut-off for the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; 27% exceeded the cut-off on the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Additionally, 54% endorsed scores greater than 40 on the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and 53% endorsed a high score on the positive outcome expectations. CONCLUSIONS:A substantial portion of the sample endorsed elevated scores on one or more indicators of delayed recovery from MSI. Most participants showed a fear of physical activity, and approximately half reported pain-related distress (anxiety and depression). In addition, feelings of self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations of treatment were endorsed by only about half of the participants, indicating that the remaining half did not report adaptive responses to MSI. Early identification of these risk factors will allow for targeted treatment approaches that incorporate these yellow flags into treatment and support a psychologically informed approach to physical therapy. This approach is likely to reduce delayed recovery and improve deployment readiness.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs) pose a significant problem for active duty service members (ADSMs). MSIs may compromise readiness and are one of the main reasons for separation from the Navy and long-term disability. Implementation of optimal treatment strategies rests on understanding the characteristics of MSI complaints in a given population. This study reports on the frequency and nature of MSI complaints of ADSMs seeking care at a military treatment facility (MTF). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:As part of a larger quasi-experimental study, data on MSIs from ADSMs reporting to an MTF were collected. Subjects completed a baseline questionnaire during an initial evaluation, including the self-reported MSIs for which participants were seeking care, time since onset, and other MSI comorbidities. RESULTS:Of the 289 respondents, 118 (41%) were female and 172 (59%) were male. The mean age was 33 years (SD = 8). The most frequently reported injury was low-back pain (n = 79, 27%), followed by knee pain (n = 60, 21%) and shoulder pain (n = 55, 19%). Thirty-four (12%) respondents reported injuries to the ankle or foot. The remaining respondents (21%) reported injuries to the neck, mid-back, arm or hand, hip, or other. Sixty-five (22%) reported an acute/subacute injury of less than 3 months, whereas 224 (78%) reported chronic injury >3 months. Furthermore, MSI comorbidities were reported by 233 (80%) of respondents with 128 of those reporting more than one. CONCLUSIONS:Back and knee injuries were most prevalent in ADSMs reporting an MSI at a Navy shore-based MTF. Shoulder injuries were also common. Of interest, 80% of ADSMs reported at least one MSI comorbidity and 80% reported chronic injury in this study. These rates are higher than those found in a previous study of ADSMs deployed on a carrier. This is notable because chronicity and multiple MSIs are obstacles to readiness. Our findings suggest that ADSMs reporting to shore-based facilities may be at higher risk for disability than their deployed counterparts. This information is important to the development of targeted care to improve readiness in this population.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Older adults comprise a large portion of back pain (BP) sufferers but are under-represented in the literature. Patients over age 65 present with different clinical characteristics and psychosocial needs than younger patients. Therefore, recommended patient-centered outcomes for BP may not be relevant to older patients. RESEARCH QUESTION/UNASSIGNED:What treatment outcomes are most important to adults over 65 years of age? MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We queried older adults seeking treatment for BP using qualitative methods. Participants were asked about their goals and expectations of treatment in an audio-taped interview. Audiotapes were transcribed, coded and analyzed by the investigators. Using thematic analysis, main themes and constructs were extracted and interpreted by the investigators. From there we were able to generate hypotheses about what older patients want from spine treatment. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:For all participants, age played a role in their treatment goals as a moderator or motivator. They were most concerned with returning to usual activities and preventing further physical limitations to maintain independence. Goals that reflect important outcomes such as increasing walking tolerance and improving balance were of particular importance. Confidence in the provider acted as a facilitator of goals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Unlike their younger cohorts, they did not emphasize work-related outcomes and pain relief. These findings can be tested in future quantitative studies and will help to develop protocols for outcomes assessment in older adults. This study is a first step towards understanding and improving the quality of care for older patients with back pain.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The purpose is to report on the fourth set of recommendations developed by SPINE20 to advocate for evidence-based spine care globally under the theme of "One Earth, One Family, One Future WITHOUT Spine DISABILITY". RESEARCH QUESTION/UNASSIGNED:Not applicable. MATERIAL AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Recommendations were developed and refined through two modified Delphi processes with international, multi-professional panels. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Seven recommendations were delivered to the G20 countries calling them to:-establish, prioritize and implement accessible National Spine Care Programs to improve spine care and health outcomes.-eliminate structural barriers to accessing timely rehabilitation for spinal disorders to reduce poverty.-implement cost-effective, evidence-based practice for digital transformation in spine care, to deliver self-management and prevention, evaluate practice and measure outcomes.-monitor and reduce safety lapses in primary care including missed diagnoses of serious spine pathologies and risk factors for spinal disability and chronicity.-develop, implement and evaluate standardization processes for spine care delivery systems tailored to individual and population health needs.-ensure accessible and affordable quality care to persons with spine disorders, injuries and related disabilities throughout the lifespan.-promote and facilitate healthy lifestyle choices (including physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation) to improve spine wellness and health. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:SPINE20 proposes that focusing on the recommendations would facilitate equitable access to health systems, affordable spine care delivered by a competent healthcare workforce, and education of persons with spine disorders, which will contribute to reducing spine disability, associated poverty, and increase productivity of the G20 nations.

INTRODUCTION:Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a primary cause of separation and long-term disability in active duty service members (ADSMs). Psychologically informed physical therapy (PiPT) is designed to identify and address modifiable psychological risk factors early in an MSD episode and has been proven effective in preventing chronicity in civilian populations. We developed a course to train military physical therapy (PT) personnel in PiPT for treating ADSM with MSD. This study tests the feasibility and effectiveness of our training. OBJECTIVE:Establish the feasibility of implementing PiPT and its effectiveness in the U.S. military. MATERIALS AND METHODS:An observational, prospective, comparative cohort study will test implementation and effectiveness. First, we will observe clinical outcomes in a cohort of ADSM with MSD receiving usual PT care at a military outpatient PT clinic. Next, we will train all PT staff in PiPT. Finally, PiPT will be implemented in a second cohort of ADSM. Data will be collected from each cohort at pre-treatment, fourth PT visit, 6 months post enrollment, and 12 months post enrollment. The primary outcomes are pain interference and psychological risk for chronicity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:Data collection is ongoing. Findings will identify the factors associated with PiPT outcomes in ADSM, inform the implementation of PiPT across health care settings, and allow us to document the prevalence of risk factors for chronicity in ADSM. Findings can help to prevent chronification from MSD, thereby reducing lost man-hours and enhancing military readiness, contribute to the development of a highly skilled workforce for the provision of health services to ADSM, and enhance the efficiency of health care delivery through optimal allocation of PT resources, resulting in significant cost savings for the military.

BACKGROUND:Studies have utilized psychological questionnaires to identify the psychological distress among certain surgical populations. RESEARCH QUESTION/OBJECTIVE:Is there an additional psychological burden among patients undergoing surgical treatment for their symptomatic degenerative cervical disease? MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients>18 years of age with symptomatic, degenerative cervical spine disease were included and prospectively enrolled. Correlations and multivariable logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between these mental health components (PCS, FABQ) and the severity of disability described by the NDI, EQ-5D, and mJOA score. Patient distress scores were compared to previously published benchmarks for other diagnoses. RESULTS:). Increasing neck disability and decreasing EQ-5D were correlated with greater PCS and FABQ(all p<0.001). Patients with severe psychological distress at baseline were more likely to report severe neck disability, while physician-reported mJOA had weaker associations. Compared to historical controls of lumbar patients, patients in our study had greater levels of psychological distress, as measured by FABQ (40.0 vs 17.6;p<0.001) and PCS (27.4 vs 19.3;p<0.001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Degenerative cervical spine patients seeking surgery were found to have a significant level of psychological distress, with a large portion reporting severe fear avoidance beliefs and catastrophizing pain at baseline. Strong correlation was seen between patient-reported functional metrics, but less so with physician-reported signs and symptoms. Additionally, this population demonstrated higher psychological burden in certain respects than previously identified benchmarks of patients with other disorders. Preoperative treatment to help mitigate this distress, impact postoperative outcomes, and should be further investigated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.