Search

Our objective was to investigate whether behavioral graded activity (BGA) has particular benefit in specific subgroups of osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Two hundred participants with OA of hip or knee, or both (clinical American College of Rheumatology, ACR, criteria) participated in a randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of BGA compared to treatment according to the Dutch physiotherapy guideline (usual care; UC). Changes in pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), physical functioning (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, WOMAC, and McMaster Toronto Arthritis Questionnaire, MACTAR), and patient global assessment were compared for specific subgroups. Subgroups were assigned by the median split method and were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Beneficial effects of BGA were found for patients with a relatively low level of physical functioning (p?0.03). Furthermore, beneficial effects of BGA in patients with a low level of internal locus of control were marginally significant (p = .05). Patients with a relatively low level of physical functioning benefit more from BGA compared to UC. Compared to UC, BGA is the preferred treatment option in patients with a low level of physical functioning.

Background: Use of conservative treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA) is suboptimal, which appears to be partly due to patients' beliefs about treatments. The aim of this study was to develop a research instrument assessing patients' beliefs about various treatment modalities of hip and knee OA: the 'Treatment beliefs in OA (TOA) questionnaire'.Methods: The item pool that was retrieved from interviews with patients and healthcare providers comprised beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activity, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections and arthroplasty. After an extensive selection procedure, a draft questionnaire with 200 items was constructed. Descriptive analyses and exploratory factor analyses with oblique rotation were conducted for each treatment modality separately to decide upon the final questionnaire. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were determined.Results: The final questionnaire comprised 60 items. It was completed by 351 patients with knee or hip OA. Each of the five treatment modalities yielded a two factor solution with 37% to 51% explained variance and high face validity. Factor I included 'positive treatment beliefs' and factor II 'negative treatment beliefs'. Internal consistency (Cronbach α's from 0.72 to 0.87) and test-retest reliability (i.e. intraclass correlation coefficient from 0.66-0.88; standard error of measurement from 0.06-0.11) were satisfactory to good.Conclusions: The TOA questionnaire is the first questionnaire assessing positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities for knee and hip OA. The instrument will help to understand whether and to what extent treatment beliefs influence treatment choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To improve patients' use of conservative treatment options of hip and knee OA, in-depth understanding of reasons underlying patients' treatment choices is required. The current study adopted a concept mapping method to thematically structure and prioritize reasons for treatment choice in knee and hip OA from a patients' perspective. Methods. Multiple reasons for treatment choices were previously identified using in-depth interviews. In consensus meetings, experts derived 51 representative reasons from the interviews. Thirty-six patients individually sorted the 51 reasons in two card-sorting tasks: one based on content similarity, and one based on importance of reasons. The individual sortings of the first card-sorting task provided input for a hierarchical cluster analysis (squared Euclidian distances, Ward's method). The importance of the reasons and clusters were examined using descriptive statistics. Results. The hierarchical structure of reasons for treatment choices showed a core distinction between two categories of clusters: barriers [subdivided into context (e.g. the healthcare system) and disadvantages] and outcome (subdivided into treatment and personal life). At the lowest level, 15 clusters were identified of which the clusters Physical functioning, Risks and Prosthesis were considered most important when making a treatment decision for hip or knee OA. Conclusion. Patients' treatment choices in knee and hip OA are guided by contextual barriers, disadvantages of the treatment, outcomes of the treatment and consequences for personal life. The structured overview of reasons can be used to support shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: International evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with (a combination of) non-surgical treatments, and using surgical intervention only if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that non-surgical treatments are not optimally used in orthopaedic practice. To improve the adoption of non-surgical treatments, more insight is needed into barriers and facilitators of these treatments. Therefore, this study assessed which barriers and facilitators are associated with the use and prescription of different non-surgical treatments before hip and knee OA in orthopaedic practice among patients and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands. Materials and Methods: We performed two internet-based surveys among 172 orthopaedic surgeons and 174 OA patients. Univariate association and multivariable regression techniques are used to identify barriers and facilitators associated with the use of non-surgical treatments. Results: Most barriers and facilitators among patients were associated with the use of physical therapy, lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. Among orthopaedic surgeons, most were associated with prescription of acetaminophen, dietary therapy and physical therapy. Examples of barriers and facilitators among patients included “People in my environment had positive experiences with a surgery” (facilitator for education about OA), and “Advice of people in my environment to keep on moving” (facilitator for lifestyle and dietary advice). For orthopaedic surgeons, examples were “Lack of knowledge about guideline” (barrier for lifestyle advice), “Agreements/ deliberations with primary care” and “Easy communication with a dietician” (facilitators for dietary therapy). Also the belief in the efficacy of these treatments was associated with increased prescription. Conclusions: Strategies to improve non-surgical treatment use in orthopaedic practice should be targeted at changing the beliefs of orthopedic surgeons, communication with other OA care providers and involving patient’s environment in OA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis recommend to start with (a combination of) conservative treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to conservative treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that conservative treatments are not optimally used in orthopedic practice. Our study aims to quantify the use of conservative treatments in Dutch orthopedic practice and to explore the barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments that should be taken into account in a strategy to improve the embedding of conservative treatments in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice. Methods This study consists of three phases. First, current use of conservative treatments in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis will be explored using an internet-based survey among at least 100 patients to identify the underused conservative treatments. Second, barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments in orthopedic practice will be identified using semi-structured interviews among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 5 patients. The interviews will be followed by an internet-based survey among approximately 450 orthopedic surgeons and at least 100 patients in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the previous phases using intervention mapping. Discussion The developed strategy is likely to result in an optimal and standardized use of conservative treatment options in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice, because it is focused on identified barriers and facilitators. In addition, the results of this study can be used as an example for optimizing the use of conservative care in other patient groups. In a subsequent study, the developed implementation strategy will be assessed on its effectiveness, feasibility and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]