Search

To evaluate the performance and applicability of multivariable prediction models for osteoarthritis (OA).Systematic review and narrative synthesis using three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science; inception to December 2021). We included general population longitudinal studies reporting derivation, comparison, or validation of multivariable models to predict individual risk of OA incidence, defined by recognised clinical or imaging criteria. We excluded studies reporting prevalent OA and joint arthroplasty outcome. Paired reviewers independently performed article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Model performance, calibration and retained predictors were summarised.26 studies were included reporting 31 final multivariable prediction models for incident knee (23), hip (4), hand (3) and any-site OA (1), with a median of outcome events of 121.5 (range: 27-12,803), median prediction horizon of 8 years (2-41), and a median of 6 predictors (3-24). Age, body mass index, previous injury, and occupational exposures were among the most commonly included predictors. Model discrimination after validation was generally acceptable to excellent (Area Under the Curve = 0.70 to 0.85). Either internal or external validation processes were used in most models although risk of bias was often judged to be high with limited applicability to mass application in diverse populations.Despite growing interest in multivariable prediction models for incident OA, there remains a predominant focus on the knee, reliance on data from a small pool of appropriate cohort datasets, and concerns over general population applicability.

Background Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) affect a large and growing proportion of the population. Treatment options are typically conservative making self-management a priority. Using trained peers to support individuals with OA has potential to improve self-management. Purpose To explore the process of engaging and training volunteers to become peer mentors; and to qualitatively evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and value of being a peer mentor to support others' self-management of OA. Materials and methods A qualitative evaluation of a peer mentorship support intervention reporting the processes of recruitment and training; and semi-structured interviews conducted with nine active peer mentors. Transcribed interviews were coded and analysed using framework analysis. Results It was possible to recruit, train and retain volunteers with OA to become peer mentors. The peer mentors benefitted from their training and felt equipped to deliver the intervention. They enjoyed social elements of the mentorship intervention and gained satisfaction through delivering valued support to mentees. Peer mentors perceived the mentorship intervention to have a positive impact on self-management of OA for mentees. Conclusion Training volunteers with OA to become peer mentors was feasible and acceptable. Peer mentors perceived their support benefitted others with OA. They positively rated their experience of providing mentorship support.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis study demonstrates that it is possible to recruit, train and engage older volunteers to become peer mentors for people with osteoarthritis.Training should highlight the significance of employing key self-management techniques such as goal-setting.Peer mentors acknowledged that they benefitted from training and delivering the mentorship intervention, and this impacted positively on their own osteoarthritis self-management.Careful consideration of matching mentors and mentees appears to enhance the success of mentorship support.Recognising the impact of mentorship support on mentees' self-management is central to peer mentors' sustained engagement with the intervention.

Background Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are common musculoskeletal conditions. Treatment is usually conservative, making self-management a priority. We developed and trialled an OA peer mentorship intervention to support self-management in older people. Our objectives were to gain understanding of the perceived challenges of living with OA and explore how a peer mentorship intervention can support tackling these challenges; and to explore mentees' experiences of receiving the intervention to understand how this affected their OA self-management. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews focussing on acceptability and feasibility of being in the study were conducted with mentees. Transcribed interviews were double coded and subject to framework analysis. To address the objectives of this paper, three main themes were subject to focused analysis: mentees' experiences of OA, experience of peer mentorship support and factors influencing self-management. Results Seventeen mentees participated in an interview following completion of the peer support intervention. Themes emerging from focused analysis were the following: tackling the challenges of living with OA pre- and post-intervention; and the interplay of the peer mentorship intervention and self-management. Key elements of the latter theme are enabling factors provided by peer mentorship, and mentees' readiness to self-manage. Conclusion To effectively support OA self-management, peer mentorship interventions should include core educational components and focus on strategies that enhance key enablers of self-management. Paying attention to the mentor–mentee relationship and timing of intervention engagement can maximise opportunities for older people to adjust and transition from supported to independent self-management.

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA).DesignSix-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial.SettingOne secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust.ParticipantsFifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA.InterventionsParticipants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only.Outcome measuresKey feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months.ResultsNinety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group.ConclusionsThe feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures.Trial registration numberISRCTN:50675542.

Introduction Activity pacing is considered a key component of rehabilitation programmes for chronic pain/fatigue. However, there are no widely used guidelines to standardize how pacing is delivered. This study aimed to undertake the first stage in developing a comprehensive evidence‐based activity pacing framework. Methods An online survey across pain/fatigue services in English National Health Service trusts explored healthcare professionals' opinions on the types/uses of pacing, aims, facets and perceived effects. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for closed‐ended questions and thematic analysis for open‐ended questions. Purposeful recruitment with a snowball effect engaged 92 healthcare professionals (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, doctors and psychologists) to the study. Results Pacing was highly utilized, with perceived long‐term benefits for patients (n = 83, 90.2% healthcare professionals instructed pacing). The most endorsed aim of pacing was “achievement of meaningful activities” (24.5% of ranked votes). The least endorsed aim was “to conserve energy” (0.1% of ranked votes). The most frequently supported facet of pacing was “breaking down tasks” (n = 91, 98.9%). The least supported facet was “stopping activities when symptoms increase” (n = 6, 6.5%). Thematic analysis showed recurring themes that pacing involved flexibility and sense of choice. Conclusions Pacing is a multidimensional coping strategy and complex behaviour. The message is clear that pacing should enable increases in meaningful activities, as opposed to attempting to avoid symptoms. The survey findings have informed the development of an activity pacing framework to guide healthcare professionals on the multiple components of pacing. This will help to standardize and optimize treatments for chronic pain/fatigue and enable future investigations.

Background Over 90,000 total knee replacement (TKR) procedures are performed annually in the United Kingdom (UK). Patients awaiting TKR face long delays whilst enduring severe pain and functional limitations. Almost 20% of patients who undergo TKR are not satisfied post-operatively. Optimising pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation could help improve patient outcomes pre- and post-operatively; however, current pre-operative TKR care varies widely. Definitive evidence on the optimal content and delivery of pre-operative TKR care is lacking. This study aimed to develop evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. Methods A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted with a 60-member expert panel. All panellists had experience of TKR services as patients (n = 30) or professionals (n = 30). Round 1 included initial recommendations developed from a mixed methods rapid review. Panellists rated the importance of each item on a five-point Likert scale. Panellists could also suggest additional items in Round 1. Rounds 2 and 3 included all items from Round 1, new items suggested in Round 1 and charts summarising panellists’ importance ratings from the preceding round. Free-text responses were analysed using content analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. All items rated as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ by at least 70% of all respondents in Round 3 were included in the final set of recommendations. Results Fifty-five panellists (92%) (patients n = 26; professionals n = 29) completed Round 3. Eighty-six recommendation items were included in Round 1. Fifteen new items were added in Round 2. Rounds 2 and 3 therefore included 101 items. Seventy-seven of these reached consensus in Round 3. Six items reached consensus amongst patient or professional panellists only in Round 3. The final set of recommendations comprises 34 education topics, 18 education delivery approaches, 10 exercise types, 13 exercise delivery approaches and two other treatments. Conclusions This modified Delphi study developed a comprehensive set of recommendations that represent a useful resource for guiding decision-making on the content and delivery of pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. The recommendations will need to be interpreted and reviewed periodically in light of emerging evidence.

OBJECTIVES: We have developed and feasibility tested an activity pacing framework for clinicians to standardise their recommendations of activity pacing to patients with chronic pain/fatigue. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and fidelity to this framework in preparation for a future trial of activity pacing. \ud \ud DESIGN: Acceptability and fidelity were explored using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis. \ud \ud PARTICIPANTS: Patients who attended a rehabilitation programme for chronic pain/fatigue underpinned by the framework, and clinicians (physiotherapists and psychological wellbeing practitioners) who led the programmes. \ud \ud RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted, involving 12 patients with chronic pain/fatigue and five clinicians. The framework analysis revealed four deductive themes: (1) Acceptability of the activity pacing framework, (2) Acceptability of the feasibility study methods, (3) Processes of change and (4) Barriers and facilitators to activity pacing; and one inductive theme: (5) Perspectives of patients and clinicians. \ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: The activity pacing framework appeared acceptable to patients and clinicians, and adherence to the framework was demonstrated. Processes of behaviour change included patients' regulation of activities through activity pacing. Barriers to pacing included work/social commitments and facilitators included identifying the benefits of pacing on symptoms. Different perspectives emerged between clinicians and patients regarding interpretations of symptom-contingent and quota-contingent strategies. The framework recognises fluctuations in symptoms of chronic pain/fatigue and encourages a quota-contingent approach with flexibility. Future work will develop a patient friendly guide ahead of a clinical trial to explore the effects of pacing.

This brief communication responds to the paper by Jeong and Cho (Qual Life Res 26(4):903–911, 2017) that has described activity pacing in limited terms of adjusting activities through going at a slower rate and taking breaks. Activity pacing was reported as not involving goal setting, in comparison to other strategies for long-term conditions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. This brief communication aims to challenge this limited perception of activity pacing in light of numerous studies that recognise pacing to be a more complex strategy. Pacing is considered to be a multifaceted coping strategy, including broad themes of not only adjusting activities, but also planning activities, having consistent activity levels, acceptance of current abilities and gradually increasing activities, and one that includes goal setting as a key facet. It is essential that pacing is both defined and measured as a multifaceted strategy in order to assess the outcomes of pacing, and for meaningful comparisons with other strategies regarding efficacy for the management of long-term conditions.

Background: Activity pacing has been associated with both improved and worsened symptoms, and its role in reducing disability among patients with long-term conditions has been questioned. However, existing studies have measured pacing according to unidimensional subscales, and therefore the empirical evidence for pacing as a multifaceted construct remains unclear. We have developed a 26-item Activity Pacing Questionnaire (APQ-26) for chronic pain/fatigue containing 5 themes of pacing: activity adjustment, activity consistency, activity progression, activity planning, and activity acceptance.\ud \ud \ud Objective: To assess the associations between the 5 APQ-26 pacing themes and symptoms of pain, physical fatigue, depression, avoidance, and physical function.\ud \ud \ud Methods: Cross-sectional questionnaire study design. Data analyzed using multiple regression.\ud \ud \ud Participants: A total of 257 adult patients with diagnoses of chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.\ud \ud \ud Results: Hierarchical multiple regression showed that activity adjustment was significantly associated with increased physical fatigue, depression, and avoidance, but decreased physical function (all Ps≤0.030). Activity consistency was associated with decreased pain, physical fatigue, depression, and avoidance, but increased physical function (all Ps≤0.003). Activity planning was associated with reduced physical fatigue (Ps=0.025) and activity acceptance was associated with increased avoidance (Ps=0.036).\ud \ud \ud Conclusions: Some APQ-26 pacing themes were associated with worse symptoms and others with symptom improvement. Specifically, pacing themes involving adjusting/reducing activities were associated with worse symptoms, whereas pacing themes involving undertaking consistent activities were associated with improved symptoms. Future study will explore the causality of these associations to add clarification regarding the effects of pacing on patients’ symptoms.

Objective Despite the frequent recommendation of activity pacing as a coping strategy for patients with chronic pain and/or fatigue, pacing is interpreted in different ways and there is an absence of a widely accepted pacing scale. We have developed a new Activity Pacing Questionnaire (APQ). The aims of this study were to explore patients' views and beliefs about the concept of pacing, together with the acceptability of the APQ. Design Qualitative pragmatic study using semi-structured telephone interviews. Data were analysed using Framework analysis. Participants 16 adult patients attending secondary care physiotherapy out-patient departments were recruited via purposive sampling. Diagnoses included chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Findings Pacing emerged as a multifaceted concept from participants' descriptions. The implementation of pacing was influenced by participants' age, the presence of co-morbidities and participants' emotions. The APQ was found to be generally acceptable in comparison to two existing pacing subscales. Participants undertook activities using quota/symptom-contingent approaches. Four behavioural typologies emerged: Task avoidance, Task persistence, Task fluctuation (boom-bust) and Task modification (activity pacing). Conclusions The APQ appears to be easy to complete, and acceptable to patients who are attending physiotherapy for the management of long-term conditions. It emerged that individual patients implemented different pacing facets to varying degrees, and that different behavioural typologies were apparent. The relationships between behavioural typologies and facets of pacing warrant further investigation to facilitate the development of effective tailored pacing interventions.

BackgroundTherapists frequently advise the use of activity pacing as a coping strategy to manage long-term conditions (eg, chronic low back pain, chronic widespread pain, chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis). However, activity pacing has not been clearly operationalized, and there is a paucity of empirical evidence regarding pacing. This paucity of evidence may be partly due to the absence of a widely used pacing scale. To address the limitations of existing pacing scales, the 38-item Activity Pacing Questionnaire (APQ-38) was previously developed using the Delphi technique.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were: (1) to explore the psychometric properties of the APQ-38, (2) to identify underlying pacing themes, and (3) to assess the reliability and validity of the scale.DesignThis was a cross-sectional questionnaire study.MethodsThree hundred eleven adult patients with chronic pain or fatigue participated, of whom 69 completed the test-retest analysis. Data obtained for the APQ-38 were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, internal and test-retest reliability, and validity against 2 existing pacing subscales and validated measures of pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, avoidance, and mental and physical function.ResultsFollowing factor analysis, 12 items were removed from the APQ-38, and 5 themes of pacing were identified in the resulting 26-item Activity Pacing Questionnaire (APQ-26): activity adjustment, activity consistency, activity progression, activity planning, and activity acceptance. These themes demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach α=.72–.92), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=.50–.78, P≤.001), and construct validity. Activity adjustment, activity progression, and activity acceptance correlated with worsened symptoms; activity consistency correlated with improved symptoms; and activity planning correlated with both improved and worsened symptoms.LimitationsData were collected from self-report questionnaires only.ConclusionsDeveloped to be widely used across a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain or fatigue, the APQ-26 is multifaceted and demonstrates reliability and validity. Further study will explore the effects of pacing on patients' symptoms to guide therapists toward advising pacing themes with empirical benefits.