BackgroundPersistent pain and psychological distress are common after traumatic musculoskeletal injury (TMsI). Individuals sustaining a TMsI are often young, do not recover quickly, and place a large economic burden on society.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to determine (1) the incidence of persistent pain following TMsI, (2) the characteristics of pain, characterized by injury severity and type, and (3) risk and protective factors associated with persistent pain following TMsI.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE®, PubMed®, Embase, and PsycINFO®) was conducted for prospective, interventional, or noninterventional studies measuring the incidence of pain associated with TMsI.ResultsThe search revealed 4388 studies. Eleven studies examined persistent pain and met inclusion criteria. Pain was assessed using a validated measure of pain intensity or pain presence in six studies. Persistent pain was reported by all studies at variable time points up to 84 months postinjury, with wide variation among studies in pain intensity (ie, from mild to very severe) and pain incidence at each time point. The incidence of pain decreased over time within each study. Two studies found significant relationships between injury severity and persistent pain. Frequently cited predictive factors for persistent pain included: symptoms of anxiety and depression, patient perception that the injury was attributable to external sources (ie, they were not at fault), cognitive avoidance of distressing thoughts, alcohol consumption prior to trauma, lower educational status, being injured at work, eligibility for compensation, pain at initial assessment, and older age.Conclusion and implicationsThe evidence from the eleven studies included in this review indicates that persistent pain is prevalent up to 84 months following traumatic injury. Further research is needed to better evaluate persistent pain and other long-term posttraumatic outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundComplexity thinking is increasingly being embraced in healthcare, which is often described as a complex adaptive system (CAS). Applying CAS to healthcare as an explanatory model for understanding the nature of the system, and to stimulate changes and transformations within the system, is valuable.Main textA seminar series on systems and complexity thinking hosted at the University of Toronto in 2016 offered a number of insights on applications of CAS perspectives to healthcare that we explore here. We synthesized topics from this series into a set of six insights on how complexity thinking fosters a deeper understanding of accepted ideas in healthcare, applications of CAS to actors within the system, and paradoxes in applications of complexity thinking that may require further debate: 1) a complexity lens helps us better understand the nebulous term “context”; 2) concepts of CAS may be applied differently when actors are cognizant of the system in which they operate; 3) actor responses to uncertainty within a CAS is a mechanism for emergent and intentional adaptation; 4) acknowledging complexity supports patient-centred intersectional approaches to patient care; 5) complexity perspectives can support ways that leaders manage change (and transformation) in healthcare; and 6) complexity demands different ways of implementing ideas and assessing the system. To enhance our exploration of key insights, we augmented the knowledge gleaned from the series with key articles on complexity in the literature.ConclusionsUltimately, complexity thinking acknowledges the “messiness” that we seek to control in healthcare and encourages us to embrace it. This means seeing challenges as opportunities for adaptation, stimulating innovative solutions to ensure positive adaptation, leveraging the social system to enable ideas to emerge and spread across the system, and even more important, acknowledging that these adaptive actions are part of system behaviour just as much as periods of stability are. By embracing uncertainty and adapting innovatively, complexity thinking enables system actors to engage meaningfully and comfortably in healthcare system transformation.

By identifying common barriers and areas requiring additional attention to ensure capture of unique barriers and facilitators, these findings provide a starting point for development of a framework to guide the assessment of barriers to and facilitators of maternal health and potentially to evidence implementation more generally in LMICs.