Subgroups in chronic low back pain patients - a step toward cluster-based, tailored treatment in inpatient standard care: On the need for precise targeting of treatment for chronic low back pain.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to find applicable clusters for the development of different treatment pathways in an inpatient multimodal pain-therapy setting based on the multifaceted nature of CLBP. Methods: Based on data of questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Marburg Questionnaire on Habitual Health Findings (MFHW), quality of life assessment using the Short-Form 12 (SF 12)), a retrospective two-step cluster analysis involving a sample of chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients (N=320) was calculated. Subsequently, the clusters were precisely described and compared on the basis of further data collected during the patients' standard care: pain characteristics, socio-demographic data and the general state of health, psychological variables, therapy intensity, and Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) data. Results: We found a three-cluster solution: little psychological interference but marginal physical and mental quality of life (Cluster 1); poor well-being, low physical quality of life, and marginal mental quality of life (Cluster 2); and heavy mental strain and marginal physical quality of life (Cluster 3). Conclusions: Similar to previous studies, our results suggest that patients suffering from CLBP differ with regard to the magnitude of mental burden and the presence of physical impairment. These differences ascertain the need for precise targeting of treatment for CLBP. Inpatient pain centers therefore should offer different multimodal therapy pathways and integrate a meaningful triage, taking into account the multifaceted nature of CLBP based on sophisticated knowledge about forms, differences, and relationships among the biopsychosocial components of CLBP.

European Core Health Indicators - status and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) are a key source of comparable health information for the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS). The ECHI shortlist contains 88 indicators which were developed by experts from MS and international organisations. Most indicators are derived from data sources at the EU's statistical office (Eurostat), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are available for most MS. The remaining indicators on the shortlist are at different stages of conceptual and/or methodological development. The indicators have been reviewed in the past against scientific developments, changes in data collections and emerging policy needs, yet not as part of a systematic and sustainable procedure. There is also no regular inventory of problems met by the MS in collecting the necessary data. Work package 4 of the BRIDGE Health project aimed at updating and improving the existing ECHI-indicator knowledge and expertise and at strengthening the scientific base that supports the effective development and use of health indicators for health policy evaluation and prioritization by the EU and its MS. The aim of this paper is to present a first overview of its outcomes and to explore issues concerning the ECHI data availability, content and policy relevance, update process and accessibility to stakeholders, in light of working towards a sustainable future. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted within the framework of the BRIDGE Health project to reassess the status of the ECHI shortlist. The first survey focused on data availability in EU MS, candidate countries and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The second survey evaluated current needs and criteria with respect to content and policy relevance of the ECHI shortlist. Exploring potential new indicator topics was part of both surveys. All evaluations were supported by an advisory network of national and international experts. RESULTS: Of the 36 countries (EU MS, candidate and EFTA countries) contacted for the data availability mapping, 23 countries (63%) participated in the survey. Data availability from preferred data sources varied between chapters. Availability was highest for the chapter on demography and socio-economic situation, followed by the chapter on health status, where data were available for most indicators from more than 90% of the participating countries. Problems experienced by MS relating to the incorporation of ECHI into their health systems were also identified through the survey. Findings from the survey on policy relevance point at the need for strengthening the links with policy (priorities) and for exploring a possible format change of the list to accommodate actionability. It also showed support for embedding ECHI in a sustainable health information structure; this may practically be aided by a web-based single point of access to an information repository. CONCLUSION: Policy relevance is an essential but not systematically developed criterion for the inclusion of indicators into the ECHI shortlist. Data availability is crucial for the actual implementation of indicators and has considerably increased for ECHI in the last decade. The data availability mapping provides a structured overview of the current status of data availability for implemented indicators. The ECHI shortlist can contribute to the collection of comparable policy-relevant health data in Europe, foster evidence-based public health and contribute to Member States learning from each other. Flexible and systematic incorporation of policy relevance in the ECHI shortlist review and revision process may substantiate ECHI as a core component of a future sustainable European health information infrastructure.

Utilization of physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy by children and adolescents in Germany.Results of the cross-sectional KiGGS Wave 2 study and trends.

Allied health services such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy contribute to the early treatment of health disorders in children and adolescents and promote a healthy development. This article describes the utilization of these allied health services by children and adolescents in Germany and analyses its association with demographic and social factors. The analyses are based on the second wave of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS Wave 2, 2014-2017) including 15,023 participants. Trends are calculated in comparison with the KiGGS baseline study (2003-2006). Within one year, 9.6% of children and adolescents in Germany use physical therapy, 6.1% speech therapy and 4.0% occupational therapy. Speech therapy and occupational therapy are used more frequently by boys than by girls. The utilization of speech therapy is highest among 3- to 6-year-olds with 15.0%. Occupational therapy (8.3%) is most frequently used by 7- to 10-year-olds and physical therapy (16.9%) by 14- to 17-year-olds. Social differences are evident mainly in the higher utilization of occupational therapy and speech therapy and a lower utilization of physical therapy by socially disadvantaged children and adolescents. Over the last ten years, the utilization of speech therapy and physical therapy in children and adolescents has increased significantly.