Search

IntroductionSoaring prevalence of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) inflicts high costs on the healthcare system. A further rise in the OA incidence is expected, generating increased demand of care potentially challenging accessibility and threatening to overwhelm the healthcare system. Innovative solutions that may improve accessibility to recommended OA care for patients in primary care and maintain healthcare sustainability are warranted. Digitalising home exercise therapy may be one such solution. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile health app providing digitalised home exercises, compared with supervised exercise therapy in patients with OA. Second, we will evaluate the cost-efficiency of the intervention and explore potential differences in outcome and adherence to exercises in the experimental treatment group.Methods and analysisA two-armed non-inferiority randomised controlled trial will be conducted. In total, 156 patients with hip and/or knee OA will be recruited from physiotherapy clinics in primary care in Norway. Following patient education, patients will be randomised to either 6 weeks of standard treatment (2 weekly sessions of supervised exercise therapy) or experimental treatment (home exercises via the Virtual Training (VT) app). Primary outcome is the proportion of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include physical performance, patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease activity, physical function, mental health, health related quality of life, self-efficacy, utilisation of healthcare services and medication, digital competence and use of apps.Ethics and disseminationPatients will sign an informed consent form before participating in the trial. Approval has been granted by the Regional Ethics Committee (201105) and Data Protection Officer at Diakonhjemmet Hospital (00221). Patient research partners will contribute in all parts of the study.Trial registration numberNCT04767854.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability. Clinical practice guidelines recommend education on OA management, exercise, and weight control. However, many people with OA do not receive this recommended OA care. Some health care professionals (HCPs) lack the knowledge and skills to deliver recommended OA care. This article presents a framework to guide the development and evaluation of education and training for HCPs in the delivery of evidence-based OA care including: (1) Overarching principles for education and training; (2) Core capabilities for the delivery of best evidence OA care; (3) Theories of learning and preferences for delivery; (4) Evaluation of education and training.

This article provides an overview of osteoarthritis (OA) management recommendations and strategies to improve clinical practice concordance with clinical guidelines. In many countries, the primary point of care for a person with OA is typically general practitioners and physiotherapists. Optimal primary care focuses on core OA treatments, namely education for self-management and lifestyle interventions encompassing increased physical activity, therapeutic exercise, and weight loss (if indicated). Quality indicators are used in clinical practice and research to determine the quality of care and in some settings, are used as knowledge translation tools to address existing evidence-to-practice gaps.

Background:The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of cam morphology in a cohort of people aged 40–55 years. Secondary aims were to: (1) determine differences in participant characteristics, physical impairments, radiographic and ultrasound appearances of people with and without cam morphology; and (2) explore associations between cam morphology and radiographic measures of hip osteoarthritis (OA).Methods:107 people (68% women; 49 ± 4 years) from the Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker (MUST) Study underwent the clinical and imaging examinations. Examinations included questionnaires, hip range, functional task performance, pelvic radiographs and ultrasound. Alpha angle and radiographic hip OA (Kellgren Lawrence (KL) and minimal joint space (MJS)) were determined.Results:The prevalence of cam morphology was 42% and was bilateral in 47%. People with cam morphology were 6 times more likely to have a KL score ⩾2 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence intervals, p-value]) 6.386 [1.582–37.646, p = 0.012]) and 4 times more likely to have MJS Conclusions:In a cohort aged 40–55 years, the prevalence of cam morphology was high (42%), with a significant relationship between cam morphology and radiographic measures of hip OA. Further longitudinal studies should explore the relationship between cam morphology and hip OA in younger people.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) in the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) is a prevalent disease which may lead to structural damage, severe pain and functional limitations. Evidence-based treatment recommendations state that all patients with hand OA should be offered non-pharmacological treatment. Surgery should be considered only when other treatment has proven insufficient in relieving pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate prior treatment and characteristics of patients referred to specialist health care surgical consultation due to CMCJ OA. The study includes exploring differences in pain and function between referred and non-referred hand, between men and women, and between patients with and without OA affection of other finger joints than CMCJ. Methods: Patients in this cross-sectional study reported prior non-pharmacological treatment for CMCJ OA. Patient demographics, disease and functional variables were assessed based on hand radiographs, patient-reported and observer-based outcome measures. Differences in pain and function between referred and non-referred hand, men and women, and between patients with and without additional affection of finger joints other than CMCJ, were analysed using Paired-samples T-tests, Wilcoxon Signed Rank, or Chi-Square tests. Results: One hundred and eighty patients were included. The mean age was 63 years and 79% were women. Only 21% reported having received non-pharmacological treatment before referral to surgical consultation. The results show a statistically significant worse function for referred hands, women and involvement of additional interphalangeal joints. Most patients reported no pain or mild pain in their referred hand. Conclusions: The results of this study show a non-pharmacological treatment gap in OA care. Most patients report no pain or mild pain, and that they had not received non-pharmacological treatment prior to being referred to CMCJ OA surgical consultation. The results furthermore show that CMCJ OA negatively affects all aspects of function. Strategies need to be developed to improve OA care, including educating general practitioners in evidence-based treatment recommendations and in the assessment of hand pain, and encourage the routine referral of patients with symptomatic hand OA to occupational therapy before considering surgery. This study was conducted with the financial support from The Interregional research funds (HELSEFORSK) via The Research Council of Norway, project number 243758.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of video consultations as an alternative to hospital face-to-face consultations was advanced for persons with rheumatic diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Video consultations were introduced in March 2020, and this article presents the experiences gained by healthcare professionals and patients.The data was collected in June 2020 through focus-group interviews with healthcare professionals and through an anonymous online survey of patients who had attended video consultations during a period of three weeks in June 2020.The data from the focus-group interviews with seven rheumatologists and seven nurses were sorted into main thematic categories: patient, healthcare professional, consultation, and technology. The healthcare professionals felt that video consultations, with some exceptions, were appropriate in the follow-up of patients with rheumatic diseases, and especially for stable patients with no confounding issues. Of the 383 patients who were invited to participate, 139 (36 %) responded to the survey. The patients were largely satisfied with the video consultation, with a median score of 10 (quartiles 8-10) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, however, 32 (27 %) patients considered the lack of clinical examination to be detrimental.Video consultations are often appropriate in the follow-up of patients with a rheumatic disease.

Background To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in a Norwegian municipality initiated an intervention. The intervention aimed to increase provision of core OA treatment (information, exercise, and weight control) prior to referral for surgery, rational use of imaging for assessing OA and improve communication between healthcare professionals. This study assessed the effectiveness of this intervention. Methods Forty-eight PTs and one hundred one GPs were invited to the intervention that included two interactive workshops outlining best practice and an accompanying template for PT discharge reports. Using interrupted time series research design, the study period was divided into three: pre-implementation, transition (implementation) and post-implementation. Comparing the change between pre- and post-implementation, the primary outcome was patient-reported quality of OA care measured with the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of PT discharge reports, information included in GP referral letters to orthopaedic surgeon, the proportion of GP referral letters indicating use of core treatment, and the use of imaging within OA assessment. Analyses involved linear mixed and logistic regression models. Results The PT workshop had 30 attendees, and 31 PTs and 33 GPs attended the multidisciplinary workshop. Two hundred eight and one hundred twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire during pre- and post-implementation, respectively. The adjusted model showed a small, statistically non-significant, increase in mean total score for quality of OA care (mean change = 4.96, 95% CI -0.18, 10.12, p:0.057), which was mainly related to items on OA core treatment. Patients had higher odds of reporting receipt of information on treatment alternatives (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% CI 1.08, 3.24) and on self-management (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.33, 4.32) in the post-implementation phase. There was a small, statistically non-significant, increase in the proportion of GP referral letters indicating prior use of core treatment modalities. There were negligible changes in the number of PT discharge reports, in the information included in the GP referral letters, and in the use of imaging for OA assessment. Conclusion This study suggests that a primary care intervention including two inter-active workshops can shift the quality of care towards best practice recommendations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02876120.

To assess the short-term effects of multimodal occupational therapy on pain and hand function in patients referred for surgical consultation due to first carpometacarpal (CMC1) joint osteoarthritis (OA).In this randomized controlled trial, patients with CMC1 joint OA referred for surgical consultation at 3 rheumatology departments were randomized to 3 months multimodal occupational therapy (including patient education, hand exercises, orthoses, and assistive devices) or usual treatment (OA information). Pain was measured on a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no pain). Function included grip and pinch strength (Newtons), range-of-motion (palmar and CMC1 joint abduction [°]; flexion deficit in digits 2-5 [mm]), and self-reported Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand; range 1-4, 1 = no activity limitation) and short version of the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH; range 0-100, 0 = no disability). Between-group difference was assessed with follow-up values as dependent variables and group as an independent variable, adjusted for baseline values and time to follow-up.Among 180 patients (mean ± SD age 63 ± 8 years; 81% women), 170 completed the short-term follow-up assessment (3-4 months after baseline). Compared to usual treatment, occupational therapy yielded significantly improved pain at rest (-1.4 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -0.7, -2.0]; P 0.001), pain following grip strength (-1.1 [-0.5, -1.7]; P = 0.001), grip strength (23.4 [95% CI 7.5, 39.3]; P = 0.004), MAP-Hand score (-0.18 [95% CI -0.09, -0.28]; P = 0.001), and QuickDASH score (-8.1 [95% CI -4.6, -11.5]; P 0.001).The multimodal occupational therapy intervention had significant short-term effects on pain, grip strength, and hand function in patients with CMC1 joint OA.

Objective: Towards developing an instrument to measure knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) flare, the Out-come Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Flares in OA Working Group first sought to identify and define relevant domains of flare in KHOA.Methods: Guided by OMERACT Filter 2.1, candidate domains were identified from data generated in inter-views, in English or French, with persons with KHOA and health professionals (HPs) who treat OA. The first and second rounds of an online Delphi process with patients and HPs, including researchers, selected rele-vant domains. The third round provided agreement on the selected domains and their definitions. At the vir-tual OMERACT 2020 workshop, the proposed domains and their definitions were discussed in facilitated breakout groups with patients and HPs. Participants then voted, with consensus set at >= 70%.Results: Qualitative interviews characterizing OA flare were completed with 29 persons with KHOA and 16 HPs. Content was analyzed and grouped into nine clusters. These candidate domains were included in two Delphi rounds, completed by 91 patients and 165 HPs then 50 patients and 116 HPs, per round, respectively. This resulted in selecting five relevant domains. A final Delphi round, completed by 38 patients and 89 HPs, provided agreement on these domains and their definitions. The OMERACT virtual vote included 27 patients and 106 HPs. The domains and their definitions were endorsed with >= 98% agreement. Domains include: Pain, Swelling, Stiffness, Psychological aspects, and Impact of symptoms, all defined "during flare".Conclusion: Using OMERACT methodology, we have developed five domains of KHOA flare that were highly endorsed by patients and HPs. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: Knowledge is lacking on patient goals and motivation for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis (CMCJ OA) surgery. The objective of this study was to explore patient goals and motivation for surgery, whether patient goals were reflected in self-reports of pain and function, and factors characterizing patients highly motivated for surgery. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 180 patients referred from their general practitioner for CMCJ surgical consultation. Goals for surgery were collected with an open-ended question, categorized with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health coding system, and compared to self-reports of pain and function. Motivation for surgery was rated with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10, 0 = not motivated). Factors characterizing patients highly motivated for surgery (NRS ≥ 8) were explored with multivariate regression analyses. Results: The mean age of the participants was 63 years (SD = 7.6), and 142 (79%) were women. The most common goals for surgery were to reduce pain and improve arm and hand use, but these were not reflected in self-reports of pain and function. Fifty-six (31%) of the patients were characterized as highly motivated for surgery. High motivation for surgery was strongly associated with reporting more activity limitations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.00, P = .008), living alone (OR = 3.18, P = .007), and a young age (OR = 0.94, P = .002). Conclusions: Decisions on CMCJ OA surgery should be based on assessment and discussion of patients’ life situation, hand pain, activity limitations for, and goals and motivation for surgery. According to the european league against rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations, previously received conservative and pharmacological treatment should also be evaluated.

Objective: To assess construct validity (Rasch analyses) of the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) in people with carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1 OA), and to explore differences in activity performance between people with CMC1 OA and those with rheumatoid arthritis.\ud Design: Cross-sectional study.\ud Subjects: A total of 180 people with CMC1 OA referred for surgical consultation were recruited from rheumatology clinics in Norway, and 340 people with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited from outpatient rheumatology clinics in the UK.\ud \ud Methods: The MAP-Hand consists of 18 predefined items scored on a 4-point scale from 1 (no difficulty) to 4 (unable to do), from which a mean score is calculated. Construct validity was assessed using Rasch analyses. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using an independent sample t-test at the group level and differential item functioning (condition\ud as grouping variable) at the item level.\ud Results: Some mis-targeting of data and clusters of dependency were found, but the MAP-Hand scores showed an overall fit to the model. No between group difference in total mean MAP-Hand score was found, but there were significant differences between the 2 groups on item levels.\ud \ud Conclusion: The MAP-Hand showed satisfactory construct validity and could differentiate between\ud people with CMC1 OA and those with rheumatoid arthritis on item levels.

Background To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8–12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0–10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results Two hundred eighty-four intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (ORadjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02333656. Registered 7. January 2015.

Objective.To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand osteoarthritis (OA).Methods.Systematic review using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six electronic databases were searched up until September 2015. Inclusion criteria: randomized or controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise, or comparing different exercise programs. Main outcomes: hand pain, hand function, finger joint stiffness, quality of life, adverse events, and withdrawals because of adverse effects. Risk of bias and quality of the evidence were assessed.Results.Seven trials were included in the review, and up to 5 trials (n = 381) were included in the pooled analyses with data from postintervention. Compared to no exercise, low-quality evidence indicated that exercise may improve hand pain [5 trials, standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.27, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.07], hand function (4 trials, SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.02), and finger joint stiffness (4 trials, SMD −0.36, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.15) in people with hand OA. Quality of life was evaluated by 1 study (113 participants) showing very low-quality evidence for no difference. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and not severe.Conclusion.Pooled results from 5 studies with low risk of bias showed low-quality evidence for small to moderate beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function, and finger joint stiffness postintervention. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated.

The objective of the study was to examine the hand-, knee- and hip osteoarthritis (OA) distribution, risk factor profiles and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a population-based OA cohort. Persons with self-reported OA responded to questionnaires and attended a clinical examination (N = 606). We analyzed cross-sectional associations to risk factor profiles and HRQoL dimensions (Short Form 36) in four mutually exclusive groups based on fulfillment of The American College of Rheumatology criteria: no OA (NOA), monoarticular upper extremity (hand) OA (MOAupper-ex.), monoarticular lower extremity (hip or knee) OA (MOAlower-ex.) and polyarticular OA (POA). Multivariate regression analyses and correspondence analysis were performed. The distribution of NOA, MOAupper-ex. MOAlower-ex. and POA was 21.1, 25.4, 22.4 and 31.0%, respectively. Compared to NOA, minor differences were found in risk factor profile in MOAupper-ex., whereas POA was significantly associated with sociodemographic, metabolic and mechanical features. The correspondence analysis identified different risk factor profiles between the four OA phenotypes, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.13). Regarding HRQoL, neither OA groups were associated with poorer mental functioning. MOAlower-ex. and POA were associated with, among other things, poorer physical functioning (β = -6.2, 95% CI -11.2 to -1.2 and β = -12.5, 95% CI -17.4 to -7.9, respectively) and more pain (β = -5.4, 95% CI -10.4 to -0.3 and β = -10.5, 95% CI -15.3 to -5.8, respectively). In this cohort of persons with self-reported OA, POA was the most prevalent phenotype and was associated with an unfortunate risk factor profile and several diminished HRQoL dimensions. POA needs further attention in research and clinical care.

To explore whether smoking and alcohol use are associated with hand osteoarthritis (OA) features in two different OA cohorts.We studied 530 people with radiographic hand OA from the Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker STudy (MUST) and 187 people from the Oslo hand OA cohort [mean (sd) age 65 (8.0) and 62 (5.7) years, 71% and 91% women, respectively]. Smoking, alcohol use and hand pain were self-reported. Participants underwent conventional hand radiographs and ultrasound examination of 30 hand joints. The Kellgren-Lawrence sum score for radiographic OA severity (0-120 scale) and the proportion of participants having at least one joint with grey-scale synovitis (grade ≥1) were calculated. We studied whether smoking and alcohol use were cross-sectionally associated with radiographic OA, synovitis, and pain using adjusted linear and logistic regression analyses.Smoking was associated with less radiographic OA in both cohorts [β = -4.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.36 to -1.06 for current smoking in MUST and β = -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.02 for smoking pack-years in the Oslo hand OA cohort]. Stratified analyses indicated that the association was present in men only. Being a monthly drinker (examined in MUST only) was significantly associated with present synovitis compared to never drinkers (odds ratio = 2.35, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.34) (no gender differences). Neither smoking nor alcohol was associated with hand pain.Smoking was associated with less radiographic hand OA whereas alcohol consumption was associated with present joint inflammation in hand OA. Future longitudinal studies are needed to explore the causal associations and explanatory mechanisms behind gender differences.

To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international recommendations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this model in primary care.We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial with stepped-wedge cohort design in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) between January 2015 and October 2017. The randomised order was concealed to the clusters until the time of crossover from the control to the intervention phase. The intervention was implementation of the SAMBA model, facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners and physiotherapists with an update on OA treatment recommendations. Patients in the intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education and individually tailored exercise programme for 8-12 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0-100, 100 = optimal quality) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported referrals to physiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity level; and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). In all, 40 of 80 general practitioners (mean age [SD] 50 [12] years, 42% females) and 37 of 64 physiotherapists (mean age [SD] 42 [8] years, 65% females) participated. They identified 531 patients, of which 393 patients (mean age [SD] 64 [10] years, 71% females) with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included. Among these, 109 patients were recruited during the control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). The patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score of 60 versus 41, mean difference 18.9; 95% CI 12.7, 25.1; p0.001) and higher satisfaction with OA care (odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% CI 6.44, 22.72; p0.001) compared to patients in the control group. The increase in quality of care was close to, but below, the pre-specified minimal important change. In the intervention group, a higher proportion was referred to physiotherapy (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.08, 5.73; p = 0.03), a higher proportion fulfilled physical activity recommendations (OR 9.3; 95% CI 2.87, 30.37; p0.001), and a lower proportion was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08, 0.80; p = 0.02), as compared to the control group. There were no significant group differences regarding referral to MRI (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.13, 2.38; p = 0.42) and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.70, 2.51; p = 0.34). Study limitations include the imbalance in patient group size, which may have been due to an increased attention to OA patients among the health professionals during the intervention phase, and a potential recruitment bias as the patient participants were identified by their health professionals.In this study, a structured model in primary care resulted in higher quality of OA care as compared to usual care. Future studies should explore ways to implement the structured model for integrated OA care on a larger scale.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

ObjectivesTo evaluate whether occupational therapy, provided in the period between referral and surgical consultation, might delay or reduce the need of surgery in thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) osteoarthritis and to explore predictors for CMCJ surgery.MethodsThis multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients referred for surgical consultation due to CMCJ osteoarthritis. An occupational therapy group received hand osteoarthritis education, assistive devices, CMCJ orthoses and exercises. A control group received only hand osteoarthritis information. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients that had received CMCJ surgery after 2 years. We examined the primary outcome and predictors for surgery with regression models, and time to surgery with the log-rank test and cox regression analyses.ResultsOf 221 patients screened for eligibility, 180 were randomised. Information on the primary outcome was collected from medical records for all included patients. Surgery was performed on 22 patients (24%) that had received occupational therapy and 29 (32%) control patients (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.21; p=0.14). Median time to surgery was 350 days (IQR 210–540) in the occupational therapy group and 296 days (IQR 188–428) in the control group (p=0.13). Previous non-pharmacological treatment (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.14 to 6.50) and higher motivation for surgery (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43) were significant predictors for CMCJ surgery.ConclusionsOccupational therapy showed a small non-significant tendency to delay and reduce the need for surgery in CMCJ osteoarthritis. Previous non-pharmacological treatment and higher motivation for surgery were significant predictors for surgery.

b Study Design Cross-sectional methodological study with test-retest design. Introduction The Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) is an assessment tool measuring hand-related activity limitations. Purpose To assess reliability, validity, and interpretability of the MAP-Hand in patients with hand osteoarthritis with specific involvement of the thumb (CMC1). Methods One hundred-and-eighty patients referred to surgical consultation for hand osteoarthritis affecting the CMC1 were included in the evaluation of validity and interpretability. Among these, 59 stable patients were included in reliability analyses, completing the questionnaire twice with a 2-week retest interval. The MAP-Hand has 18 predefined and 5 optional patient-specific items, scored on a 4-point scale (1 = no difficulty to 4 = not able to do). Relative (ICC2.1) and absolute (SDC95%ind) reliability were calculated. An ICC of >0.70 was considered acceptable. Nine (75%) or more of 12 predetermined hypotheses had to be confirmed for acceptable construct validity. Interpretability was assessed using floor and ceiling effects and considered present if 15% scored at eitherend of the scale. Results Mean (SD) age was 63 (8) years, and most patients were women (79%). The mean total score of predefined items showed acceptable reliability (ICC2.1 0.74, SDC95%ind 0.60) and construct validity. The mean total score of the patient-specific items did not reach acceptable reliability. Ceiling effect was found for the predefined items. Discussion and Conclusions We found that the mean total score of the predefined items on MAP-Hand had acceptable reliability and construct validity but a ceiling effect in patients with hand osteoarthritis with CMC1 affection.

Objective - It is currently unknown whether osteoarthritis (OA) is inherited mainly from the mother, father, or both. This study was undertaken to explore the effect of maternal and paternal factors on hip, knee, and hand OA in offspring. Methods - Participants from the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker Study (MUST) (69% female; mean ± SD age 64 ± 9 years) and a Norwegian OA twin study (Nor‐Twin) (56% female; 49 ± 11 years) reported whether their mother and/or father had OA. Using a recurrence risk estimation approach, we calculated whether maternal and paternal OA increased the risk of 1) surgically defined hip and knee OA (i.e., total joint replacement) and 2) clinically defined hip, knee, and hand OA (i.e., the American College of Rheumatology criteria) using logistic regression. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Results - Maternal OA consistently increased the risk of offspring OA across different OA locations and severities. Having a mother with OA increased the risk of any OA in daughters (RR 1.13 [95% CI 1.02–1.25] in the MUST cohort; RR 1.44 [95% CI 1.05–1.97] in the Nor‐Twin cohort) but not (or with less certainty) in sons (RR 1.16 [95% CI 0.95–1.43] in the MUST cohort; RR 1.31 [95% CI 0.71–2.41] in the Nor‐Twin cohort). Having a father with OA was less likely to increase the risk of any OA in daughters (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.85–1.16] in the MUST cohort; RR 1.52 [95% CI 0.94–2.46] in the Nor‐Twin cohort) and sons (RR 1.08 [95% CI 0.83–1.41] in the MUST cohort; RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.35–2.48] in the Nor‐Twin cohort). Conclusion - OA in the mother increased the risk of surgically and clinically defined hip, knee, and hand OA in offspring, particularly in daughters. Our findings imply that heredity of OA may be linked to maternal genes and/or maternal‐specific factors such as the fetal environment.

Summary Objective This paper evaluates the implementation fidelity of a strategy and intervention used to implement osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations in primary care. We also evaluate uptake of core treatment (patient information, exercise and referral to weight management) among OA patients. Design A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled study (RCT) in primary care. The study involved general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and patients with hip and/or knee OA in six Norwegian municipalities (clusters). Workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and PTs represented the main implementation activity. Uptake of core treatment (patient education, exercise and weight management) was evaluated using self-reported data from the patient intervention and control group, analysed with logistic regression models. Fidelity was evaluated using six components representing adherence to the content and dose instructions in the implementation strategy and assessed against a-priori criteria for high adherence. Results Data were collected from 40 GPs, 37 PTs and 393 OA patients. The patient-reported data showed statistically significant higher uptake for exercise, patient education and referral to support for weight reduction, among the intervention group compared to the control group (P Evaluation of fidelity showed high adherence to GP and PT workshop attendance and physiotherapy use, partly adherence to PT knowledge after workshops, and low adherence to exercise attendance, dose and progression instructions. Conclusions The implementation strategy and intervention successfully improved OA patients' access to physiotherapy and uptake of recommended core treatment. However, the strategy was less effective in providing exercise programs with sufficient dose and progression and in supporting patients' adherence to the exercise program. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656 .

Summary Objectives To assess validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the revised OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire version 2 (v2) assessing patient-reported quality of osteoarthritis care. Methods The OA-QI v2 (16 items, score range 0–100 (100 = best score)) was included in a longitudinal cohort study. Attendees of a 4.5 h osteoarthritis patient education programme at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway, completed the OA-QI at four time points: 2 weeks before, immediately before, immediately after, and 3 months after the programme. Test-retest reliability and measurement error over a 2-week time period were assessed in those that had not seen health professionals in the interim. Construct validity and responsiveness were assessed with predefined hypotheses. Floor and ceiling effects, smallest detectable change (SDC95%) and minimal important change (MIC) were assessed to evaluate interpretability. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient for all 16 items was 0.89. For single items the test-retest kappa estimates ranged 0.38–0.85 and percent agreement 69–92%. Construct validity was acceptable with all six predefined hypotheses confirmed. Responsiveness was acceptable with 33 of 48 and three of four predefined hypotheses confirmed for single items and all items, respectively. There were no floor or ceiling effects. The SDC95% was 29.1 and 3.0 at the individual and group levels, respectively. MIC was 20.4. Conclusions The OA-QI v2 had higher reliability estimates compared to v1, showed acceptable validity, and is the recommended version for future use. The results of responsiveness testing further support the use of the OA-QI v2 as an outcome measure in studies aiming to improve osteoarthritis care.

Background Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no cure for OA is known, and non-pharmacological modalities are recommended as first-line care. A positive effect of exercise in hip and knee OA has been documented, but the effect of exercise on hand OA remains uncertain. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand OA. Main outcomes are hand pain and hand function. Search methods We searched six electronic databases up until September 2015. Selection criteria All randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise or comparing different exercise programmes. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes consisted of both continuous (hand pain, physical function, finger joint stiffness and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportions of adverse events and withdrawals). Main results We included seven studies in the review. Most studies were free from selection and reporting bias, but one study was available only as a congress abstract. It was not possible to blind participants to treatment allocation, and although most studies reported blinded outcome assessors, some outcomes (pain, function, stiffness and quality of life) were self-reported. The results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias owing to unblinded participants and self-reported outcomes. Two studies with high drop-out rates may be vulnerable to attrition bias. We downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to low owing to potential detection bias (lack of blinding of participants on self-reported outcomes) and imprecision (studies were few, the number of participants was limited and confidence intervals were wide for the outcomes pain, function and joint stiffness). For quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, we further downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to very low because studies were very few and confidence intervals were very wide. Low-quality evidence from five trials (381 participants) indicated that exercise reduced hand pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.07) post intervention. The absolute reduction in pain for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 5% (1% to 9%) on a 0 to 10 point scale. Pain was estimated to be 3.9 points on this scale (0 = no pain) in the control group, and exercise reduced pain by 0.5 points (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9). Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise improved hand function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02) post intervention. The absolute improvement in function noted in the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 6% (0.4% worsening to 13% improvement). Function was estimated at 14.5 points on a 0 to 36 point scale (0 = no physical disability) in the control group, and exercise improved function by 2.2 points (95% CI -0.2 to 4.6; NNTB 9). One study (113 participants) evaluated quality of life, and the effect of exercise on quality of life is currently uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.32). The absolute improvement in quality of life for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 0.3% (4% worsening to 4% improvement). Quality of life was 50.4 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (100 = maximum quality of life) in the control group, and the mean score in the exercise group was 0.3 points higher (3.5 points lower to 4.1 points higher). Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise reduced finger joint stiffness (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) post intervention. The absolute reduction in finger joint stiffness for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 7% (3% to 10%). Finger joint stiffness was estimated at 4.5 points on a 0 to 10 point scale (0 = no stiffness) in the control group, and exercise improved stiffness by 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; NNTB 7). Three studies reported intervention-related adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The few reported adverse events consisted of increased finger joint inflammation and hand pain. Low-quality evidence from the three studies showed an increased likelihood of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 4.55, 95% CI 0.53 to 39.31) and of withdrawals due to adverse events in the exercise group compared with the control group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 27.18), but the effect is uncertain and further research may change the estimates. Included studies did not measure radiographic joint structure changes. Two studies provided six-month follow-up data (220 participants), and one (102 participants) provided 12-month follow-up data. The positive effect of exercise on pain, function and joint stiffness was not sustained at medium- and long-term follow-up. The exercise intervention varied largely in terms of dosage, content and number of supervised sessions. Participants were instructed to exercise two to three times a week in four studies, daily in two studies and three to four times daily in another study. Exercise interventions in all seven studies aimed to improve muscle strength and joint stability or function, but the numbers and types of exercises varied largely across studies. Four studies reported adherence to the exercise programme; in three studies, this was self-reported. Self-reported adherence to the recommended frequency of exercise sessions ranged between 78% and 94%. In the fourth study, 67% fulfilled at least 16 of the 18 scheduled exercise sessions. Authors' conclusions When we pooled results from five studies, we found low-quality evidence showing small beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function and finger joint stiffness. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated. One study reported quality of life, and the effect is uncertain. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and were not severe.

Exercising is recommended for people with hand osteoarthritis (HOA), but there is no consensus regarding the design of exercise programmes.To describe the development and content of an evidence-based exercise programme for people with HOA.The development was based on research evidence, professional expertise, and client evidence and adhered to the new Medical Research Council framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions. The process included literature search and appraisal, discussions with clinicians and patient research partners, and piloting, followed by a revision of the programme based on feedback from pilot participants.The programme contains three exercises to increase the strength and stability of the shoulder, arm and wrist muscles, and four exercises to maintain or increase range of motion, grip strength, and joint stability in the finger joints. It starts with a warm-up period, ends with a finger stretch exercise, and follows the American College of Sports Medicine's recommendations regarding exercise intensity, session frequency, and length of exercise period. An exercise diary is included as part of the programme.An evidence-based exercise programme for people with HOA has been developed. The effect of the programme has recently been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Aim: A method for structured functional assessments of persons with long-term sick leave was implemented in a cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. The aim was to analyse intervention effects on general practitioner (GP) sick-listing practice and patient sick leave. Methods: 57 GPs were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. The intervention group GPs learned the method at a 1-day workshop including teamwork and role-playing. The control group GPs were requested to assess functional ability as usual during the 8 months intervention period in 2005. Outcome measures included duration of patient sick leave episodes, GP prescription of part-time sick leave, active sick leave, and vocational rehabilitation. This data was extracted from a national register. Results: The GPs in the intervention group prescribed part-time sick leave more often (p < 0.01) and active sick leave less often (p = 0.04) than the control group GPs during the intervention period. There was no intervention effect on duration of patient sick leave episodes or on GP prescription of vocational rehabilitation. Conclusions: Implementing structured functional assessments in general practice made the GPs capable to assess functional ability of persons with long-term sick leave in a standardised and explicit manner. The intervention GPs’ sick-listing practice was changed as they prescribed more part-time and less active sick leave compared to the control group GPs. As a result, more intervention GP patients returned to part-time work compared to control GP patients. No intervention effect was seen on duration of patient sick leave episodes or on prescription of vocational rehabilitation.

To evaluate the state of quality of care for osteoarthritis (OA) by summarizing studies that have assessed the care provided to patients.A systematic review of community-based observational studies of actual clinical practice treating people with OA compared with quality indicators (QIs) was performed. Four databases were searched from January 2000 to November 2015. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The outcome was adherence to the QIs (pass rate). The overall pass rate (the total number of indicators passed divided by the total number of indicators for which the patients were eligible) was extracted from each study. When at least 50% of the studies had comparable individual QIs, the data were pooled with proportion meta-analyses.Fifteen studies comprising 16,103 patients were included, and the median overall pass rate across studies was 41% (range 22-65%). The pooled pass rates for individual QIs were "referral to orthopedic surgeon if no response to other therapy": 59.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 47.5-70.3); "paracetamol or acetaminophen first drug used": 46.0% (95% CI 26.6-66.7); "assessed for pain and/or function": 45.5% (95% CI 33.9-57.6); "referral or recommendation to exercise": 38.7% (28.9-49.5); "offered education and self-management": 35.4% (95% CI 27.8-44.0); and "informed about potential risks if NSAIDs prescribed": 34.1% (95% CI 24.7-44.9).There is room for improvement in community-based OA care.

Background Previous research indicates that people with osteoarthritis (OA) are not receiving the recommended and optimal treatment. Based on international treatment recommendations for hip and knee OA and previous research, the SAMBA model for integrated OA care in Norwegian primary health care has been developed. The model includes physiotherapist (PT) led patient OA education sessions and an exercise programme lasting 8–12 weeks. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, feasibility, and costs of a tailored strategy to implement the SAMBA model. Methods/design A cluster randomized controlled trial with stepped wedge design including an effect, process, and cost evaluation will be conducted in six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The municipalities will be randomized for time of crossover from current usual care to the implementation of the SAMBA model by a tailored strategy. The tailored strategy includes interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and PTs in primary care covering the SAMBA model for integrated OA care, educational material, educational outreach visits, feedback, and reminder material. Outcomes will be measured at the patient, GP, and PT levels using self-report, semi-structured interviews, and register based data. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include referrals to PT, imaging, and referrals to the orthopaedic surgeon as well as participants’ treatment satisfaction, symptoms, physical activity level, body weight, and self-reported and measured lower limb function. The actual exposure to the tailor made implementation strategy and user experiences will be measured in a process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the difference in costs of usual OA care and the SAMBA model for integrated OA care will be compared with the difference in health outcomes and reported by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discussion The results from the present study will add to the current knowledge on tailored strategies, which aims to improve the uptake of evidence-based OA care recommendations and improve the quality of OA care in primary health care. The new knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives designed to improve the quality of OA care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656

Objectives: The aim of this population-based case–control study was to investigate whether a high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for clinical hand osteoarthritis (OA). Method: Persons living in Ullensaker municipality in Norway who were aged 20–52 years in 1990 reported height and weight in 1990, 1994, 2004, and 2010 (n ¼ 1276). Cases (clinical hand OA in 2010, n ¼ 59) were compared to controls (participants without self-reported OA or hand pain in 2010, n ¼ 805) with regard to the prospectively measured BMI by means of a generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis adjusted for age, sex, time, and education. Results: The mean age of hand OA cases was 64 (SD ¼ 7.5) years in 2010 and 78% were women. There was no association between total average BMI over the entire period and later clinical hand OA (p ¼ 0.320). Cases had a higher mean BMI in 1990 [unstandardized B ¼ 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–1.79] and in 1994 (B ¼ 0.75, 95% CI 0.22–1.28) but there were no differences between the groups in 2004 or 2010. Conclusions: The study lend support to the hypothesis that having a higher BMI when young or middle-aged might be associated with later hand OA.

Summary Objective To determine the clinical effectiveness of an exercise programme on self-reported hand activity performance in people with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Design In this randomized, controlled trial, participants with physician-confirmed hand OA were randomly allocated to a 12-week exercise intervention (group- and home-based) or usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported hand activity performance at 3 months measured by the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and a patient-generated measure of disability, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Results Of 130 randomized participants (mean age 66 (standard deviation (SD) 9); female 90%), 120 (92%) and 119 (92%) completed the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. The adjusted mean difference for the exercise vs control group was −0.5 points (95% confidence interval (CI) −1.6, 0.6) for the FIHOA score (0–30 scale, 0 = best) and 0.9 points (95% CI 0.1, 1.7) for the PSFS score (0–10 scale, 10 = best). Small significant mean differences in favour of the intervention group were found for hand pain, hand stiffness and disease activity, whereas no mean differences were observed in hand dexterity or maximal grip strength. A significantly larger proportion in the intervention (46%) vs control group (16%) fulfilled the Outcome Measures in Rheumatological Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responder criteria at 3 months (OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.9, 10.2). At the 6-month follow-up, there were no significant group differences in any outcome. Conclusions The exercise programme was well tolerated among people with hand OA, but resulted only in small, beneficial short-term improvements on self-reported measures and not on most performance-based tests. Future studies should address optimal grip strength exercises and dosage. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01245842.

Open Access Highly Accessed Study protocol Efficacy of strength and aerobic exercise on patient-reported outcomes and structural changes in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Britt Elin Øiestad1*, Nina Østerås2, Richard Frobell3, Margreth Grotle4, Helga Brøgger5 and May Arna Risberg16 * Corresponding author: Britt E Øiestad britt.e.oiestad@nimi.no Author Affiliations 1 Norwegian Research Center for Active Rehabilitation (NAR), Department of Orthopedics, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, 0407 Oslo, Norway 2 National Resource Center for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway 3 Department of Orthopaedics, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden 4 Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway 5 Department of Radiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevaal, Oslo, Norway 6 Department of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway For all author emails, please log on. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2013, 14:266 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-266 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/14/266 Received: 29 July 2013 Accepted: 11 September 2013 Published: 12 September 2013 © 2013 Øiestad et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background Despite an extensive literature on treatment interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis, studies comparing the efficacy of different exercise interventions and living the life as usual on quality of life, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness are lacking. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of two different exercise programs compared to a control group in individuals with established radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis on self-reported knee-related quality of life, knee pain, physical function, and cartilage quality. Methods/Design A three-armed randomized controlled trial involving two exercise interventions and a control group of individuals doing as they usually do is described. The patients will have mild to moderate radiographic osteoarthritis according to the Kellgren and Lawrence classification (grade 2–3), and fulfill the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria, be aged between 45 and 65 years, and have no other serious physical or mental illnesses. The patients will be randomly allocated to a strength exercise group; a cycling group, or a control group. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score knee-related quality of life subscale. Secondary outcomes include all five Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, morphological evaluation of cartilage including focal thickness, subchondral bone marrow edema, proteoglycan content and collagen degradation (measured using magnetic resonance imaging clinical sequences, T2 mapping and T1ρ), specific serum biomarkers, isokinetic muscle strength, maximal oxygen uptake, quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and self-efficacy (Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale). A sample size calculation on the primary outcome showed that 207 individuals, 69 in each group, is needed to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10 points with 80% power and a significance level of 5%. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 14 weeks, 1 year and 2 years post-randomization. The interventions will be a 14 weeks exercise program. Discussion Although exercise therapy has been found to be effective in knee osteoarthritis, the knowledge of the underlying mechanisms for why exercise works is lacking. This study will contribute with knowledge on the efficacy of strength exercise versus cycling on patient-reported outcomes, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01682980.

BackgroundExercise interventions are often incompletely described in reports of clinical trials, hampering evaluation of results and replication and implementation into practice.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a standardized method for reporting exercise programs in clinical trials: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).Design and MethodsUsing the EQUATOR Network's methodological framework, 137 exercise experts were invited to participate in a Delphi consensus study. A list of 41 items was identified from a meta-epidemiologic study of 73 systematic reviews of exercise. For each item, participants indicated agreement on an 11-point rating scale. Consensus for item inclusion was defined a priori as greater than 70% agreement of respondents rating an item 7 or above. Three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires and a Delphi workshop were used.ResultsThere were 57 (response rate=42%), 54 (response rate=95%), and 49 (response rate=91%) respondents to rounds 1 through 3, respectively, from 11 countries and a range of disciplines. In round 1, 2 items were excluded; 24 items reached consensus for inclusion (8 items accepted in original format), and 16 items were revised in response to participant suggestions. Of 14 items in round 2, 3 were excluded, 11 reached consensus for inclusion (4 items accepted in original format), and 7 were reworded. Sixteen items were included in round 3, and all items reached greater than 70% consensus for inclusion.LimitationsThe views of included Delphi panelists may differ from those of experts who declined participation and may not fully represent the views of all exercise experts.ConclusionsThe CERT, a 16-item checklist developed by an international panel of exercise experts, is designed to improve the reporting of exercise programs in all evaluative study designs and contains 7 categories: materials, provider, delivery, location, dosage, tailoring, and compliance. The CERT will encourage transparency, improve trial interpretation and replication, and facilitate implementation of effective exercise interventions into practice.

Background Musculoskeletal conditions (MSCs) are widely prevalent in present-day society, with resultant high healthcare costs and substantial negative effects on patient health and quality of life. The main aim of this overview was to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of exercise therapy (ET) on pain and physical function for patients with MSCs. In addition, the evidence for the effect of ET on disease pathogenesis, and whether particular components of exercise programs are associated with the size of the treatment effects, was also explored. Methods We included four common conditions: fibromyalgia (FM), low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and shoulder pain (SP), and four specific musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and osteoporosis (OP). We first included Cochrane reviews with the most recent update being January 2007 or later, and then searched for non-Cochrane reviews published after this date. Pain and physical functioning were selected as primary outcomes. Results We identified 9 reviews, comprising a total of 224 trials and 24,059 patients. In addition, one review addressing the effect of exercise on pathogenesis was included. Overall, we found solid evidence supporting ET in the management of MSCs, but there were substantial differences in the level of research evidence between the included diagnostic groups. The standardized mean differences for knee OA, LBP, FM, and SP varied between 0.30 and 0.65 and were significantly in favor of exercise for both pain and function. For NP, hip OA, RA, and AS, the effect estimates were generally smaller and not always significant. There was little or no evidence that ET can influence disease pathogenesis. The only exception was for osteoporosis, where there was evidence that ET increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women, but no significant effects were found for clinically relevant outcomes (fractures). For LBP and knee OA, there was evidence suggesting that the treatment effect increases with the number of exercise sessions. Conclusions There is empirical evidence that ET has beneficial clinical effects for most MSCs. Except for osteoporosis, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of the ways in which ET influences disease mechanisms.

To develop and test a new instrument for patient self-reported quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care, and to provide quality indicator (QI) pass rates in a Norwegian OA cohort.The OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire was developed using published QIs, expert panels, and patient interviews. Self-reported data were collected from 359 persons in a Norwegian OA cohort, and test-retest reliability and validity were assessed. Separate QI pass rates and summary QI pass rates were calculated.The 17-item questionnaire includes QIs related to patient education and information, regular provider assessments, referrals, and pharmacologic treatment. The patient self-reported questionnaire was completed with minimal respondent burden. Support for content validity was confirmed by 2 patient research partners and 2 expert panels. All 10 predefined hypotheses relating to construct validity were confirmed. Test-retest kappa coefficients ranged from 0.20-0.80 and the percentage of exact agreement ranged from 62-90%. The mean pass rate for individual QIs was 31% (range 5-49%). The median summary QI pass rate was 27% (interquartile range 12-50%), with lower summary pass rates for nonpharmacologic compared to pharmacologic treatments.To our knowledge, this is the first instrument developed to measure patient-reported QI pass rates for OA care. This study indicates that the OA-QI questionnaire is acceptable to persons with OA, and its short format makes it suitable for population surveys. The low patient self-reported QI pass rates in this study suggest a potential for quality improvement in OA care.

Background The increasing attention on functional assessments in medical and vocational rehabilitation requires a focus change for the general practitioners (GP) into paying attention to patient resources, possibilities and coping instead of symptoms, problems and limitations. The GPs report difficulties in performing the requested explicit functional assessments. The purpose of this study was to implement a structured method in general practice for assessing functional ability in persons with long-term sick leave. The study aim was to evaluate intervention effects on important GP parameters; knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy towards functional assessments and knowledge about patient work factors. Methods Fifty-seven GPs were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control group. The intervention group GPs attended an introductory one-day work-shop and implemented structured functional assessments during an eight months intervention period. GP knowledge, GP attitudes, and GP self-efficacy towards functional assessments, as well as GP knowledge of patient work factors, were collected before, after and six months after the intervention period started. Evaluation score-sheets were filled in by both the intervention GPs and their patients immediately after the consultation to evaluate the GPs' knowledge of patient work factors. Results The intervention GPs reported increased knowledge (B: 0.56, 95% CI (0.19, 0.91)) and self-efficacy (B: 0.90, 95% CI (0.53, 1.26)) towards functional assessments, and increased knowledge about their patients' workplace (B: 0.75, 95% CI (0.35, 1.15)) and perceived stressors (B: 0.55, 95% CI (0.23, 0.88)) with lasting effects at the second follow-up. No intervention effect was seen in relation to GP attitudes. Both before and after the intervention, the GPs were most informed about physical stressors, and less about mental and work organisational stressors (Guttman's reproducibility coefficient: 0.95 and 1.00). After the consultation, both the intervention GPs and their patients reported that the GPs' knowledge about patient work factors had increased (GP B: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.42, 0.78); patient B: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.66)). Conclusion Introducing and implementing structured functional assessments in general practice made the GPs capable to assess functional ability of their patients in a structured manner. Intervention effects of increased GP knowledge and GP self-efficacy sustained at the second follow-up.

Background There is variation in the number of response alternatives used within health-related questionnaires. This study compared a four-and a five-point scale version of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale (NFAS) by evaluating data quality, internal consistency and validity. Methods All inhabitants in seven birth cohorts in the Ullensaker municipality of Norway were approached by means of a postal questionnaire. The NFAS was included as part of The Ullensaker Study 2004. The instrument comprises 39 items derived from the activities/participation component in the International Classification for Functioning, Disabilities and Health (ICF). The sample was computer-randomised to either the four-point or the five-point scale version. Results Both versions of the NFAS had acceptable response rates and good data quality and internal consistency. The five-point scale version had better data quality in terms of missing data, end effects at the item and scale level, as well as higher levels of internal consistency. Construct validity was acceptable for both versions, demonstrated by correlations with instruments assessing similar aspects of health and comparisons with groups of individuals known to differ in their functioning according to existing evidence. Conclusion Data quality, internal consistency and discriminative validity suggest that the five-point scale version should be used in future applications.

Background The increasing focus on functional ability assessments in relation to sickness absence necessitates the measurement of population functional levels. This study assessed the reliability of the Norwegian Function Assessment Scale (NFAS) and presents normative population data. Methods All inhabitants in seven birth cohorts in Ullensaker municipality in 2004 were approached by means of a postal questionnaire. The NFAS was included as part of The Ullensaker Study 2004. The instrument comprises 39 items derived from the activities/participation component in the International Classification for Functioning, Disabilities and Health (ICF). Based on the results of principal component analysis, these items comprise seven domains. Non-parametric tests for independent samples were used to compare subgroups. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Two-week test-retest reliability was assessed by total proportions of agreement, weighted kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The response rate was 54% (1620 persons) and 75.4% (101 persons) for the retest. Items had low levels of missing data. Test-retest reliability was acceptable with high proportions of absolute agreement; kappa and ICC values ranged from 0.38 to 0.83 and 0.79 to 0.83, respectively. No difficulty on all 39 functional activities was reported by 33.1% of respondents. Females, older persons and persons with lower levels of education reported more functional problems than their respective counterparts (p < 0.05). The age gradient was most evident for three of the physical domains. For females aged 24–56 and males aged 44–76, a clear education gradient was present for three of the physical domains and one mental domain after adjusting for age and gender. Conclusion This study presents population based normative data on functional ability, as measured by the NFAS. These data will serve as basis for the development of national population norms and are necessary for score interpretation. Data quality and test-retest reliability of the NFAS were acceptable.

The purpose of this study was to describe, and analyse the effect of an intervention on, the biomechanical workload in the neck and shoulder region of female hairdressers. Arm elevation was measured by inclinometers and muscular load of m. trapezius by electromyography. The intervention comprised working technique recommendations, e.g. to work with less elevated arms and more relaxed muscles. The subjects were randomised between two different intensity levels of the intervention, one with written information only and the other with additional personal follow-up. The effect of the intervention was evaluated after 1-2 months. The hairdressers worked with their arms elevated 60 degrees or more for approximately 13% of the total working time and 16% during the specific hairdressing tasks. The intervention group including personal follow-up instructions had a reduction in workload from 4.0% to 2.5% of hairdressing time with highly elevated right upper arm, i.e. above 90 degrees . No effect was detected on muscular load or neck and shoulder symptoms after the intervention.

Background Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases in an adult population and may have a large influence on an individual’s functioning, health-related quality of life and participation in society. Several studies have demonstrated that exercises may reduce pain and improve functioning in people with knee OA, with a similar effect suggested for hip OA. For hand OA, available research is very limited and shows conflicting results, and high-quality randomised controlled trials are warranted. This paper outlines the protocol for a randomised controlled trial that aims to determine the effect of an exercise intervention on self-reported hand activity performance in people with hand OA. Methods Participants with physician-confirmed hand OA according to the ACR clinical criteria are being recruited from two Norwegian OA cohorts: the population-based “Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker Study” (MUST) OA cohort, and the hospital-based Oslo Hand OA cohort. Participants are randomised into an intervention- or control group. The control group receives “usual care”, whereas the intervention group receives a 12-week exercise intervention. The intervention group attends four group sessions and is instructed to perform the exercise program three times a week at home. Adherence will be captured using self-report. During the eight weeks with no group sessions, the intervention group receives a weekly telephone call. The assessments and group sessions are being conducted locally in Ullensaker Municipality and at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo. Outcomes are collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure is self-reported hand activity performance at 3 months post-randomisation, as measured by the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA); and a patient-generated measure of disability, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcome measures are self-reported OA symptoms (e.g. pain, stiffness and fatigue), the Patient Global Assessment of disease activity, measured hand function (e.g. grip strength, thumb web space and hand dexterity) and health-related quality of life. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted. Discussion This study will contribute to the knowledge on both the effect and resource use of an exercise programme with telephone follow-up on self-reported hand activity performance among people with hand OA. Trial registration The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number: NCT01245842 .

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Several studies have documented discordance between general practioners (GP) practice and management recommendations, but there is limited published information about patient reported experience of quality of care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the patient perceived quality of OA management in primary health care. Secondly, we wanted to explore the factors associated with the perceived quality of OA care. Methods A cross-sectional survey in six general practices in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in Norway, patients with radiologically diagnosed OA, according to ICPC codes L89, L90 or L91 or clinical signs and symptoms corresponding to OA in the hip or knee and patient-reported quality of OA care on the 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (OA-QI). OA-QI summary pass rates were calculated, in which the numerator represents the number with indicators passed and the denominator represents the total number of eligible persons. Associations with summary pass rates were explored with demographic, disease related and health care related factors as independent variables. Results A total of 119 patients were included (response rate 42%). The median summary QI pass rate for all 17 QIs was 47% (Inter Quartile Range 33-65%), but there were large variation between the different items. The referral for weight reduction had the lowest pass rate (8%), whereas the highest pass rate was having received information about the importance of physical activity and exercise (84%). The median summary QI pass rates for both non-pharmacological- (QIs 1–11) and pharmacological (QIs 13–16) treatments were 50% (IQR 25–75). In bivariate regression analyses, only overall treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with QI pass rate (p = 0.001), with unstandardized beta = 6.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 9.5), i.e. a one-point increase on the five-point satisfaction scale was associated with a 6% increase in pass rate. Conclusion Considering that the median summary QI pass rate was 47%, there might be room for improvement in OA care. Advice and the referral of OA patients in need of weight reduction seem to have the greatest potential for improvement.

Background Knowledge about the prevalence and consequences of osteoarthritis (OA) in the Norwegian population is limited. This study has been designed to gain a greater understanding of musculoskeletal pain in the general population with a focus on clinically and radiologically confirmed OA, as well as risk factors, consequences, and management of OA. Methods/Design The Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker STudy (MUST) has been designed as an observational study comprising a population-based postal survey and a comprehensive clinical examination of a sub-sample with self-reported OA (MUST OA cohort). All inhabitants in Ullensaker municipality, Norway, aged 40 to 79 years receive the initial population-based postal survey questionnaire with questions about life style, general health, musculoskeletal pain, self-reported OA, comorbidities, health care utilisation, medication use, and functional ability. Participants who self-report OA in their hip, knee and/or hand joints are asked to attend a comprehensive clinical examination at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, including a comprehensive medical examination, performance-based functional tests, different imaging modalities, cardiovascular assessment, blood and urine samples, and a number of patient-reported questionnaires including five OA disease specific instruments. Data will be merged with six national data registries. A subsample of those who receive the questionnaire has previously participated in postal surveys conducted in 1990, 1994, and 2004 with data on musculoskeletal pain and functional ability in addition to demographic characteristics and a number of health related factors. This subsample constitutes a population based cohort with 20 years follow-up. Discussion This protocol describes the design of an observational population-based study that will involve the collection of data from a postal survey on musculoskeletal pain, and a comprehensive clinical examination on those with self-reported hand, hip and/or knee OA. These data, in addition to data from national registries, will provide unique insights into clinically and radiologically confirmed OA with respect to risk factors, consequences, and management.

Background Obesity is a well-known risk factor for osteoarthritis (OA). The majority of obesity research in OA is performed using self-reported BMI-data, however, its validity in persons with OA is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the validity of self-reported body mass index (BMI) in persons with and without clinical osteoarthritis (OA) in a population-based survey. Methods Height and weight were self-reported, and thereafter measured in 600 persons with and without clinical OA according to the American College of Rheumatology-criteria (knees, hips and/or hands). We compared the differences between measured and self-reported heights, weights and BMIs (kg/m2) for the two groups and explored whether demographic/clinical factors were associated with inaccurate reporting in the OA patients using multivariate linear regression analyses. Results Mean (SD) age was 64 (8.7) years and 412 (69%) were women. Participants with clinical OA (n = 449) underreported their BMI to a greater extent than participants without clinical OA (n = 151) [mean (SD) difference 1.34 (1.68) kg/m2 and 0.78 (1.40) kg/m2 (p = 0.000), respectively]. There was a strong dose-dependent association between higher measured BMI and greater underreporting of BMI in multivariate analyses (BMI 25–29.99 kg/m2: B = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.06, 0.77), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2: B = 1.30, 95% CI, 0.86, 1.75) in the clinical OA patients. A higher age as well as the time interval from self-reported to measured BMI-data were associated with inaccurate reporting. Conclusions Researchers using self-reported height and weight data should be aware of limited agreement with actual height and weight in overweight and obese individuals with clinical OA.