Background: This study aimed to examine the association between adherence to the Planetary Health Diet (PHD) and the prevalence of chronic neck-back pain. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used baseline data from 97,543 participants in the UK Biobank with complete dietary, outcome, and covariate data. The PHD score was constructed from up to five 24-h dietary recalls. Chronic neck-back pain was defined as self-reported neck/shoulder or back pain in the previous month lasting ≥3 months and interfering with daily activities. Multivariable logistic regression, restricted cubic splines, and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 22.5% of participants reported chronic neck-back pain. In the primary analysis, each 10-point increase in the PHD score was associated with lower odds of prevalent chronic neck-back pain (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.97-1.00). In participants aged < 60 years, the association was stronger (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). The highest PHD quartile showed 7% lower odds of prevalent chronic neck-back pain compared with the lowest quartile (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98).Effect modification analyses revealed that the protective effect was most pronounced in women aged < 60 years (OR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98). Sensitivity analyses using alternative outcome definitions (ICD-10 codes, single-site pain) and exposure thresholds confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusions: Higher adherence to the Planetary Health Diet was associated with lower odds of prevalent chronic neck-back pain, particularly among adults aged < 60 years, with an approximately linear dose-response pattern. These findings provide the first prospective evidence that a sustainable, plant-centric dietary pattern may be associated with a lower risk of chronic spinal pain. However, further validation in independent populations is needed before broad clinical application can be recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: