Search

Background: Strategies are needed to improve referral into, and uptake of, osteoarthritis (OA) management programs. This survey investigated and compared patients' and medical professionals' views around hip and knee OA management and factors impacting implementation of an osteoarthritis management program. Methods: As part of a mixed‐methods program of research, patients with hip or knee OA and medical professionals routinely involved in the management of OA, were invited to complete a comprehensive online survey. All data were analysed descriptively or using chi squared tests. Survey findings for factors perceived to impact implementation of an OA management programme were triangulated with previously reported qualitative data. Results: Fifty‐three patients (38 females, 15 males) and 32 medical professionals (orthopaedic surgeons, sports physicians, rehabilitation physicians, rheumatologists and general practitioners) completed the survey. Twenty‐eight patients (53%) had prior participation in the OA management programme (GLA:D®) and 19 medical professionals (59%) had previously referred patients to the programme. Of the participants with prior exposure, 21 patients (75%) and 15 medical professionals (79%) agreed the programme was beneficial. A higher proportion of medical professionals, compared to patients, believed weight loss (100% vs. 67%), injection therapy (50% vs. 21%), hip replacement (100% vs. 62%) and knee replacement (97% vs. 62%) were effective treatments, with no differences for all other treatments. The barriers and enablers identified for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme mostly aligned to factors identified in previous related qualitative research. Divergent factors in the survey included patients concerns about doing exercise‐therapy with 81% (higher than expected) not reporting any concerns about exercising, and 19% (lower than expected) concerned about their OA joint, such as making their pain worse. Conclusions: This study has extended our understanding of barriers and enablers for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme with a lower than expected number of patients being concerned about exercising due to their OA joint. Patients and medical professionals had positive views relating to the quality of the programme delivery, patient satisfaction and programme effectiveness. Medical professionals were more likely than patients to consider weight loss, injections and joint replacement as effective treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies examining trends in revision joint replacement surgery have been quantitative in their design. A qualitative research approach could provide detailed insights into the changing burden of revision surgery from an important stakeholder perspective. This study aimed to investigate orthopaedic surgeons' perceptions around the burden of revision hip and knee replacement surgery in Australia. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study design was used. Highly experienced Australian orthopaedic surgeons specialising in primary and/or revision hip and knee replacement surgery were purposely sampled. Interviews covered the perceived burden of revision joint replacement, factors contributing to revision burden and anticipated future burden. Deductive and inductive coding techniques were used to identify themes. Results: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 14 orthopaedic surgeons, who had substantial consultant experience (range 15–30 years) and largely high‐volume practices. Five key themes were identified: (1) Revision burden has decreased over time; (2) Changes in clinical indications; (3) Perceived lack of policies focused on minimising revision surgery; (4) Role of the national registry and (5) Future trends and opportunities. Conclusion: The main indications for revision joint replacement surgery were perceived to have changed over time, moving away from implant failure‐related causes towards infection and periprosthetic fracture. Most participants considered that formal policies designed to reduce revision rates did not exist but acknowledged the positive role of the national registry, particularly within an international context. The improving evidence base and provision of registry feedback on surgeon and implant performance was expected to reduce the proportion of revision procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]