Search

Background:Research partnership approaches that engage community members within the research team (for example, integrated knowledge translation, community-based participatory research) are typically used to enhance the relevance and usefulness of research findings. However, research outcomes generated through partnered research do not de facto address the priorities of those most affected nor take inclusion or power dynamics into consideration. Consensus methods (for example, Delphi, Deliberative Dialogue) can be used to develop evidence-based solutions by addressing the groups’ needs and priorities. Limited research has examined how consensus methods are used by research partnerships. Aims and objectives:Using the PRISMA-ScR checklist as a guide, this scoping review sought to better understand the use of consensus methods in research partnerships. Methods:The search strategy involved four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus). A total of 6,654 citations were screened, 404 were advanced for full text review, and 34 studies met eligibility criteria. Data from the 34 studies were extracted and iteratively analysed by three members of our research team. Findings:At least 11 different consensus methods were used with variations of the Delphi being most common. Issues of inclusion and power dynamics were rarely discussed. Overall, there was limited reporting of consensus methods, partnership approaches, and/or power dynamics. Discussion and conclusions:This review extends the literature by providing an overview of consensus methods that have been conducted in research partnerships and how they have been executed. We offer initial considerations for conducting and reporting on the use of consensus methods in research co-production.

Partnering with patients and community stakeholders to identify, design, undertake, and evaluate research is increasingly common. We describe our experience with creating and developing an ongoing Community Stakeholder Committee to guide lung health research for disease prevention and healthcare improvement. This committee is central to the integrated knowledge translation approach of Legacy for Airway Health, which is dedicated to preventing and improving care for lung diseases. Patient engagement in research (PEIR) aims to improve the relevance, quality, and implementation of research activities. Meaningful patient and community engagement in research remains challenging to implement. The committee was established in October 2019, just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and quickly adapted from in-person to virtual engagement activities. This change led to an increased focus on relationship-building and mutual support alongside other research and training activities. We conducted a baseline evaluation survey after one year (October 2020) using a modified version of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). While individual scores suggested varied levels of meaningful engagement within the committee, overall results indicated strong personal relationships and a sense of feeling valued and respected, as well as a desire for increased opportunities to contribute to research within the program. Overall, this experience offers lessons learned about the importance of spending time and effort to build relationships, particularly in a virtual context, and shows that meaningful engagement can be done even when personal contact is limited. These efforts are illustrated in successful grant applications, research involvement, and stronger personal relationships.

In 2017, the British Columbia (Canada) SUPPORT (SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research) Unit created six methods clusters to advance methodologies in patient and public oriented research (POR). The knowledge translation (KT)/implementation science methods cluster identified that although there was guidance about how to involve patients and public members in POR research generally, little was known about how best to involve patients and public members on teams specifically exploring POR KT/implementation science methodologies. The purpose of this self-study was to explore what it means to engage patients and the public in studies of POR methods through the reflections of members of five KT/implementation science teams.Informed by a collaborative action research approach, this quality improvement self-study focused on reflection within four KT/implementation science research teams in 2020-2021. The self-study included two rounds of individual interviews with 18 members across four teams. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach followed by a structured discussion of preliminary findings with the research teams. Subsequently, through two small group discussion sessions, the patients/public members from the teams refined the findings.Undertaking research on POR KT/implementation science methodologies typically requires teams to work with the uncertainty of exploratory and processual research approaches, make good matches between patients/public members and the team, work intentionally yet flexibly, and be attuned to the external context and its influences on the team. POR methodological research teams need to consider that patients/public members bring their life experiences and world views to the research project. They become researchers in their own right. Individual and team reflection allows teams to become aware of team needs, acknowledge team members' vulnerabilities, gain greater sensitivity, and enhance communication.The iterative self-study process provided research team members with opportunities for reflection and new understanding. Working with patients/public team members as co-researchers opens up new ways of understanding important aspects of research methodologies, which may influence future KT/implementation science research approaches.In this self-study we aimed to understand how members of research teams work together. We explored how research teams included patients and public members in studying research approaches (methods) that support the creation, sharing, and use of research results that matter to patients and the public (patient and public-oriented research). We analyzed interviews with 18 members of 4 teams and discussed the findings with each team. We then further refined the results and their interpretation with patients/public team members. We found that research teams had to deal with the uncertainty that is common for this type of research, which is often exploratory and focuses on processes. There needed to be a good match between patient/public members, the topic, and the team. Teams had to be flexible in how they worked together and they needed to address how power was shared within the team. Finally, the teams were affected by world events such as COVID and social unrest. Research team members had a chance to reflect and gain new understandings through the self-study. A key learning was that patients and public members bring their life experiences and world views to the project. They become researchers in their own right. When team members have a chance to reflect they can become more aware of their own and others’ talents, needs, and vulnerabilities, that awareness can help improve communication and teamwork. Patients and public members as co-researchers can bring new ways of understanding important features of knowledge translation and implementation science research approaches.

Objectives Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA. Methods Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection. Results Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process. Conclusions The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

Objectives With increasing evidence for the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for depression, there is a growing need to consider issues related to the clinical implementation of this testing. The perspectives of key stakeholders (both people with lived experience [PWLE] and providers) are critical, but not frequently explored. The purpose of this study was to understand how PWLE and healthcare providers/policy experts (P/HCPs) perceive PGx testing for depression, to inform the consideration of clinical implementation within the healthcare system in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods We recruited two cohorts of participants to complete individual 1-h, semi-structured interviews: (a) PWLE, recruited from patient and research engagement networks and organizations and (b) P/HCPs, recruited via targeted invitation. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, de-identified, and analysed using interpretive description. Results Seventeen interviews were completed with PWLE (7 with experience of PGx testing for depression; 10 without); 15 interviews were completed with P/HCPs (family physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, pharmacists, genetic counsellors, medical geneticists, lab technologists, program directors, and insurers). Visual models of PWLE's and P/HCP's perceptions of and attitudes towards PGx testing were developed separately, but both were heavily influenced by participants’ prior professional and/or personal experiences with depression and/or PGx testing. Both groups expressed a need for evidence and numerous considerations for the implementation of PGx testing in BC, including the requirement for conclusive economic analyses, patient and provider education, technological and clinical support, local testing facilities, and measures to ensure equitable access to testing. Conclusions While hopeful about the potential for therapeutic benefit from PGx testing, PWLE and P/HCPs see the need for robust evidence of utility, and BC-wide infrastructure and policies to ensure equitable and effective access to PGx testing. Further research into the accessibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of various implementation strategies is needed to inform PGx testing use in BC.

Background: Running is a popular sport with widely recognized health benefits. Given the high rates of knee injury in runners and the growing prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), it may be useful to assess perceptions about running and knee joint health. Purpose: The objectives of this study were to (1) explore and compare the perceptions of the general public (PUB) and health care professionals (HCPs) on the topic of running and knee health and (2) explore recommendations about running and knee health provided by HCPs. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We conducted an online survey between June 18 and October 1, 2020. The questionnaire included questions on running and knee health, and HCPs were asked about their typical recommendations and level of confidence in providing recommendations on the topic. Perceptions (proportions) were compared between the PUB and HCPs using the chi-square test. Results: In total, 4521 responses (PUB, n = 2514; HCPs, n = 2007) were analyzed. A greater proportion of HCPs perceived regular running as healthy for knees (86% vs 68%; P < .001). More of the PUB than HCPs ( P < .001) believed that running frequently (29% vs 13%), long distances (54% vs 45%), and on hard surfaces (60% vs 36%) increased the risk of developing KOA. Running for those with KOA was perceived by the PUB as posing an increased risk of getting more knee pain (48%) and needing joint replacement surgery (38%), more so than by HCPs (26% and 17%, respectively). The majority of HCPs reported being relatively confident in providing evidence-based recommendations about running and knee health and mostly recommended that runners with KOA modify training parameters instead of quit. Conclusion: More HCPs perceived running as healthy for knees when compared with the PUB. Most HCPs felt confident in providing evidence-based recommendations about running and knee health.

Objectives This study aimed to explore the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic on self‐care of individuals living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Guided by a constructivist, qualitative design, we conducted one‐to‐one in‐depth telephone interviews between March and October 2020 with participants with RA purposively sampled for maximum variation in age, sex and education, who were participating in one of two ongoing randomized‐controlled trials. An inductive, reflexive thematic analysis approach was used. Results Twenty‐six participants (aged 27–73 years; 23 females) in British Columbia, Canada were interviewed. We identified three themes: (1) Adapting to maintain self‐care describes how participants took measures to continue self‐care activities while preventing virus transmissions. While spending more time at home, some participants reported improved self‐care. (2) Managing emotions describes resilience‐building strategies such as keeping perspective, positive reframing and avoiding negative thoughts. Participants described both letting go and maintaining a sense of control to accommodate difficulties and emotional responses. (3) Changing communication with health professionals outlined positive experiences of remote consultations with health professionals, particularly if good relationships had been established prepandemic. Conclusion The insights gained may inform clinicians and researchers on ways to support the self‐care strategies of individuals with RA and other chronic illnesses during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic. The findings reveal opportunities to further examine remote consultations to optimize patient engagement and care. Patient or Public Contribution This project is jointly designed and conducted with patient partners in British Columbia, Canada. Patient partners across the United Kingdom also played in a key role in providing interpretations of themes during data analysis.

Background: Improving the mobility of hospitalized patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a priority of care. AECOPD-Mob is a clinical decision-making tool for physical therapists, especially those who are newly graduated or are new to caring for patients with AECOPDs in acute care settings. Although this tool has been available for several years, dissemination via publication is not sufficient to implement it in clinical practice. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to develop, implement, and evaluate different formats of AECOPD-Mob in an acute care setting. Methods: We used a mixed-methods, convergent parallel design. In addition to the paper format of AECOPD-Mob, we developed a smartphone app, a web-based learner module, and an in-service learning session. Newly graduated physical therapists (PTs) or PTs new to the practice area were recruited from urban acute care hospitals. Participants used the different formats for 3 weeks and then completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire. User data were retrieved for the learning module. Participants participated in focus groups at 3 weeks and 3 months. Results: Eighteen (72% of eligible PTs, 100% female, 94% graduated within 3 yr) PTs participated. Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire scores for the learning module and smartphone indicated that participants were satisfied with these formats (median score 2.0 on 1–7 Likert Scale for both technology formats, lower scores indicating greater satisfaction). However, the participants reported in the focus group that the paper format was preferred over other formats. Concerns with the smartphone app included infection control and the perception of lack of professionalism when using a smartphone during clinical practice. The learning module and in-service were considered helpful as an introduction but not as an ongoing support. The paper format was seen as the most efficient way to access the necessary information and to facilitate communication between other members of the care team about the importance of mobility for hospitalized patients with AECOPDs. Conclusion: Newly graduated PTs strongly preferred the paper format of the AECOPD-Mob tool in the acute care setting. Future research will focus on knowledge translation strategies for other health disciplines.

Contemporary management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relies on exacerbation history to risk-stratify patients for future exacerbations. Multivariable prediction models can improve the performance of risk stratification. However, the clinical utility of risk stratification can vary from one population to another.How do two validated exacerbation risk prediction models (ACCEPT and Bertens) compared to exacerbation history alone perform in different patient populations?We used data from three clinical studies representing populations at different levels of moderate/severe exacerbation risk: the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT, N=2,421, annual risk=0.22), the Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT, N=595, annual risk=0.38), and Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH, N=1,091, annual risk=0.52). We compared the area under the curve (AUC) and net benefit (measure of clinical utility) among three risk stratification algorithms for predicting exacerbations in the next 12 months. We also evaluated the effect of model recalibration on clinical utility.Compared to exacerbation history, ACCEPT had better performance in all three samples (ΔAUC 0.08, 0.07, and 0.10 - all P-values ≤0.001). Bertens had better performance compared to exacerbation history in SUMMIT and TORCH (ΔAUC 0.10 and 0.05 - P-values0.001), but not in LOTT. No algorithm was superior in clinical utility across all samples. Before recalibration, Bertens generally outperformed the other algorithms in low-risk settings while ACCEPT outperformed others in high-risk settings. All three algorithms had the risk of harm (providing lower net benefit than not using any risk stratification). After recalibration, risk of harm was substantially mitigated for both prediction models.Exacerbation history alone is unlikely to provide clinical utility for predicting COPD exacerbations in all settings and could be associated with a risk of harm. Prediction models have superior predictive performance but require setting-specific recalibration to confer higher clinical utility.

Introduction: Personalized disease management informed by quantitative risk prediction has the potential to improve patient care and outcomes. The integration of risk prediction into clinical workflow should be informed by the experiences and preferences of stakeholders, and the impact of such integration should be evaluated in prospective comparative studies.The objectives of the IMplementing Predictive Analytics towards efficient Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Treatments (IMPACT) study are to integrate an exacerbation risk prediction tool into routine care and to determine its impact on prescription appropriateness (primary outcome), medication adherence, quality of life, exacerbation rates, and sex- and gender-disparities in COPD care (secondary outcomes).Methods: IMPACT will be conducted in two phases. Phase one will include the systematic and user-centered development of two decision support tools: 1) a decision tool for pulmonologists called the ACCEPT decision intervention (ADI), which combines risk prediction from the previously developed Acute COPD Exacerbation Prediction Tool with treatment algorithms recommended by the Canadian Thoracic Society’s COPD pharmacotherapy guidelines; and 2) an information pamphlet for COPD patients (patient tool), tailored to their prescribed medication, clinical needs, and lung function. In phase two, we will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in two outpatient respiratory clinics to evaluate the impact of the decision support tools on quality of care and patient outcomes. Clusters will be practicing pulmonologists (n≥24), who will progressively switch to the intervention over 18 months. At the end of the study, a qualitative process evaluation will be carried out to determine the barriers and enablers of uptake of the tools.Discussion: The IMPACT study coincides with a planned harmonization of electronic health record systems across tertiary care centers in British Columbia, Canada. The harmonization of these systems combined with IMPACT’s implementation-oriented design and partnership with stakeholders will facilitate integration of the tools into routine care, if the results of the proposed study reveal positive association with improvement in the process and outcomes of clinical care. The process evaluation at the end of the trial will inform subsequent design iterations before largescale implementation. Trial registration: NCT05309356.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) affects multiple organ systems in the acute phase and also has long-term sequelae. Research on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 is limited. The Post COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network (PC-ICCN), conceived in July 2020, is a provincially funded resource that is modelled as a Learning Health System (LHS), focused on those people with persistent symptoms post COVID-19 infection.The PC-ICCN emerged through collaboration among over 60 clinical specialists, researchers, patients, and health administrators. At the core of the network are the post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics (PCRCs), which provide direct patient care that includes standardized testing and education at regular follow-up intervals for a minimum of 12 months post enrolment. The PC-ICCN patient registry captures data on all COVID-19 patients with confirmed infection, by laboratory testing or epi-linkage, who have been referred to one of five post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics at the time of referral, with data stored in a fully encrypted Oracle-based provincial database. The PC-ICCN has centralized administrative and operational oversight, multi-stakeholder governance, purpose built data collection supported through clinical operations geographically dispersed across the province, and research operations including data analytics.To date, 5364 patients have been referred, with an increasing number and capacity of these clinics, and 2354 people have had at least one clinic visit. Since inception, the PC-ICCN has received over 30 research proposal requests. This is aligned with the goal of creating infrastructure to support a wide variety of research to improve care and outcomes for patients experiencing long-term symptoms following COVID-19 infection.The PC-ICCN is a first-in-kind initiative in British Columbia to enhance knowledge and understanding of the sequelae of COVID-19 infection over time. This provincial initiative serves as a model for other national and international endeavors to enable care as research and research as care.

Purpose: The Pain Science Division (PSD) is a special interest group of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association that serves physiotherapists who have an interest in better understanding and managing patients’ pain. The PSD developed evidence-based resources for its members with the goal of improving patient care by supporting professional development. However, online metrics tracking access to these resources indicated that access was low. The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers PSD members encountered to the use of PSD resources and to recommend interventions to address these barriers guided by the Theory and Techniques Tool (TTT). Method: We distributed an online survey to PSD members across Canada. We used the TTT, a knowledge translation tool, to guide the design of the questionnaire and identify actionable findings. Results: Response rates from 621 non-student members and 1,470 student members were 26.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Based on the frequency of practicing physiotherapists’ ( N = 167) agreement with items in the TTT, the primary barriers to use of the PSD resources were forgetting that the resources were available and forgetting to use them. Conclusions: The TTT can be used to identify barriers to use of professional development tools.

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of a multifaceted counseling intervention at improving physical activity participation and patient outcomes. METHODS We recruited people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In weeks 1-8, the immediate group received education and counseling by a physical therapist, used a Fitbit and a web application to obtain feedback about their physical activity, and received 4 follow-up calls from the physical therapist. The delay group received the same intervention in weeks 10-17. Participants were assessed at baseline and at weeks 9, 18, and 27. The primary outcome was time spent in moderate/vigorous physical activity (MVPA; in bouts of ≥10 minutes) measured with a SenseWear device. Secondary outcomes included step count, time in sedentary behavior, pain, fatigue, mood, self-management capacity, and habitual behaviors. RESULTS A total of 118 participants enrolled. The adjusted mean difference in MVPA was 9.4 minutes/day (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.5, 19.3, P = 0.06). A significant effect was found in pain (-2.45 [95% CI -4.78, -0.13], P = 0.04), and perceived walking habit (0.54 [95% CI 0.08, 0.99], P = 0.02). The remaining secondary outcomes improved, but were not statistically significant. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant effect in MVPA (14.3 minutes/day [95% CI 2.3, 26.3]) and pain (-4.05 [95% CI -6.73, -1.36]) in participants with RA, but not in those with SLE. CONCLUSION Counseling by a physical therapist has the potential to improve physical activity in people with inflammatory arthritis, but further study is needed to understand the intervention effect on different diseases. We found a significant improvement in pain, suggesting that the intervention might have a positive effect on symptom management.

Background Low participation rates (1–31%) and unique barriers to strength training (e.g., specialized knowledge, equipment, perceived complexity) suggest effective strength training interventions may differ from effective aerobic or general physical activity interventions. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine interventions used to improve strength training participation through mapping theory, intervention characteristics, prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques. Methods Recommendations by Levac et al. (2010) and PRISMA-ScR were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review, respectively. Patients and exercise professionals participated in developing the research question and data extraction form, interpreting the findings, and drafting the manuscript. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and PubMed databases (inception–December 2020) were searched. The inclusion criteria were (a) original peer-reviewed articles and grey literature, (b) intervention study design, and (c) behavioural interventions targeted towards improving strength training participation. Two reviewers performed data screening, extraction, and coding. The interventions were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. Data were synthesized using descriptive and frequency reporting. Results Twenty-seven unique interventions met the inclusion criteria. Social cognitive theory (n = 9), the transtheoretical model (n = 4), and self-determination theory (n = 2) were the only behaviour change theories used. Almost all the interventions were delivered face-to-face (n = 25), with the majority delivered by an exercise specialist (n = 23) in community or home settings (n = 24), with high variability in exercise prescription parameters. Instructions on how to perform the behaviour, behavioural practice, graded tasks, goal setting, adding objects to the environment (e.g., providing equipment), and using a credible source (e.g., exercise specialist delivery) comprised the most common behaviour change techniques. Conclusions Our results highlight gaps in theory, intervention delivery, exercise prescription parameters, and behaviour change techniques for future interventions to examine and improve our understanding of how to most effectively influence strength training participation.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. By mid-March, all Canadian provinces and territories declared states of emergency which triggered measures to support the response to the pandemic (1). Some of these measures have posed new barriers for people with arthritis to manage their health and daily activities.

Background The KT Challenge program supports health care professionals to effectively implement evidence-based practices. Unlike other knowledge translation (KT) programs, this program is grounded in capacity building, focuses on health care professionals (HCPs), and uses a multi-component intervention. This study presents the evaluation of the KT Challenge program to assess the impact on uptake, KT capacity, and practice change. Methods The evaluation used a mixed-methods retrospective pre-post design involving surveys and review of documents such as teams’ final reports. Online surveys collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were deployed at four time points (after both workshops, 6 months into implementation, and at the end of the 2-year funded projects) to measure KT capacity (knowledge, skills, and confidence) and impact on practice change. Qualitative data was analyzed using a general inductive approach and quantitative data was analyzed using non-parametric statistics. Results Participants reported statistically significant increases in knowledge and confidence across both workshops, at the 6-month mark of their projects, and at the end of their projects. In addition, at the 6-month check-in, practitioners reported statistically significant improvements in their ability to implement practice changes. In the first cohort of the program, of the teams who were able to complete their projects, half were able to show demonstrable practice changes. Conclusions The KT Challenge was successful in improving the capacity of HCPs to implement evidence-based practice changes and has begun to show demonstrable improvements in a number of practice areas. The program is relevant to a variety of HCPs working in diverse practice settings and is relatively inexpensive to implement. Like all practice improvement programs in health care settings, a number of challenges emerged stemming from the high turnover of staff and the limited capacity of some practitioners to take on anything beyond direct patient care. Efforts to address these challenges have been added to subsequent cohorts of the program and ongoing evaluation will examine if they are successful. The KT Challenge program has continued to garner great interest among practitioners, even in the midst of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and shows promise for organizations looking for better ways to mobilize knowledge to improve patient care and empower staff. This study contributes to the implementation science literature by providing a description and evaluation of a new model for embedding KT practice skills in health care settings.

If including patients as equal partners in health care research is increasingly regarded as "the right thing to do," then it is important that researchers and patients "do it right." The research community should be aware of, use, and share resources that support best practices in this domain. The first editorial in the series focused on why researchers should engage patient partners on research teams. In this, the second editorial in the series, we concentrate on how to engage patient partners and highlight a selection of resources to help researchers and to demystify patient partnerships in research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(5):219-221. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0104.

The health research landscape is changing, and it is time for the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) community to foster authentic opportunities for patient engagement in musculoskeletal research and practice. Although authentic engagement has challenges, the benefits are well worth the investment of time and energy to overcome these challenges and improve the quality of physical therapy research. In this editorial, the authors outline 3 steps JOSPT is taking to promote and support patient partnership in musculoskeletal research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(9):623-626. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.0106.

Background and aim: Telehealth is a strategy to expand the reach of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Smartphones can monitor and transmit oxygen saturation (SpO2) and heart rate (HR) data to ensure patient safety during home-based or other exercise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of a Kenek O2 pulse oximeter and custom prototype smartphone application (smartphone oximeter) during rest and exercise in healthy participants and those with chronic lung disease. Methods: Fifteen individuals with chronic lung disease and 15 healthy controls were recruited. SpO2 and HR were evaluated at rest and during cycling and walking. SpO2 was valid if the mean bias was within +± 2%, the level of agreement (LoA) was within ± 4%; HR was valid if the mean bias was within ± 5 beats per min (bpm), LoA was within ± 10 bpm. Usability was assessed with a questionnaire and direct observation. Results: The smartphone oximeter was deemed easy to use. At rest, SpO2 measures were valid in both groups (bias 10 bpm) in either group. Conclusions: The smartphone oximeter did not record HR or SpO2 accurately in patients with chronic lung disease during exercise, although SpO2 was valid at rest. During exercise, patients with chronic lung disease should pause to ensure greatest accuracy of SpO2 and HR measurement.

Objective: To compare and contrast the perspectives of patients with arthritis and those of rehabilitation professionals regarding starting and sustaining use of physical activity trackers (PATs). Methods: We conducted focus group sessions with patients, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists in Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia, Canada. To be eligible, patients must have self-reported a diagnosis of inflammatory or osteoarthritis. Rehabilitation professionals reported that at least 40% of their caseload was dedicated to arthritis care. Participants had any level of experience with PATs. A thematic analytic approach was used. Results: The following 3 themes were identified: 1) anticipating sharing objective measures of physical activity. Participants agreed that use of PATs had the potential to improve consultations between patients with arthritis and rehabilitation professionals but were uncertain how to achieve this potential; 2) perceived or experienced barriers to start or continue using a PAT. Participants shared doubts about whether existing PATs would meet specific needs of patients with arthritis and expressed concerns about possible negative impacts; and 3) bolstering motivation? Although there was agreement that use of PATs could bolster the motivation of patients who were already active, patients and rehabilitation professionals had different opinions regarding whether use of PATs alone would motivate patients to start increasing activity levels. Conclusion: Our study highlights similarities and differences between the perspectives of patients and rehabilitation professionals regarding the potential value and risks of integrating PATs into arthritis self-management. Despite agreement about the potential of PATs, participants were uncertain how to effectively incorporate these tools to enhance patient–clinician consultations and had differing views about whether use of PATs would support a patient's motivation to be active. © 2018, American College of Rheumatology

Partnering with patients and community stakeholders to identify, design, undertake, and evaluate research is increasingly common. We describe our experience with creating and developing an ongoing Community Stakeholder Committee to guide lung health research for disease prevention and health care improvement. This committee is central to the integrated knowledge translation approach of Legacy for Airway Health, which is dedicated to preventing and improving care for lung diseases. Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) aims to improve the relevance, quality, and implementation of research activities. Meaningful patient and community engagement in research remains challenging to enact. The committee was established in October 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic, and quickly adapted from in-person to virtual engagement activities. This change led to an increased focus on relationship-building and mutual support alongside other research and training activities. We conducted a baseline evaluation survey after 1 year (October 2020), using a modified version of the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22). Whereas individual scores suggested varied levels of meaningful engagement within the committee, overall results indicated strong personal relationships and a sense of feeling valued and respected, as well as a desire for increased opportunities to contribute to research within the program. Overall, this experience offers lessons learned about the importance of spending time and effort to build relationships, particularly in a virtual context, and shows that meaningful engagement can be achieved even when personal contact is limited. These efforts are illustrated in successful grant applications, research involvement, and stronger personal relationships.

Objective To shorten the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to its most essential items and evaluate its measurement properties for assessing the degree of patients’ and family caregivers’ meaningful engagement as partners in research projects. Methods A prospective cross‐sectional web‐based survey in Canada and the USA, and also paper‐based in Canada. Participants were patients or family caregivers who had engaged in research projects within the last 3 years, were ≥17 years old, and communicated in English. Extensive psychometric analyses were conducted. Results 119 participants: 99 from Canada, 74 female, 51 aged 17‐35 years and 50 aged 36‐65 years, 60 had post‐secondary education, and 74 were Caucasian/white. The original 37‐item PEIRS was shortened to 22 items (PEIRS‐22), mainly because of low inter‐item correlations. PEIRS‐22 had a single dominant construct that accounted for 55% of explained variance. Analysis of PEIRS‐22 scores revealed the following: (1) acceptable floor and ceiling effects (

Background Current guidelines emphasize an active lifestyle in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), but up to 90% of patients with OA are inactive. In a previous study, we demonstrated that an 8-week physiotherapist (PT)-led counseling intervention, with the use of a Fitbit, improved step count and quality of life in patients with knee OA, compared with a control. Objective This study aimed to examine the effect of a 12-week, multifaceted wearable-based program on physical activity and patient outcomes in patients with knee OA. Methods This was a randomized controlled trial with a delay-control design. The immediate group (IG) received group education, a Fitbit, access to FitViz (a Fitbit-compatible app), and 4 biweekly phone calls from a PT over 8 weeks. Participants then continued using Fitbit and FitViz independently up to week 12. The delay group (DG) received a monthly electronic newsletter in weeks 1 to 12 and started the same intervention in week 14. Participants were assessed in weeks 13, 26, and 39. The primary outcome was time spent in daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; in bouts ≥10 min) measured with a SenseWear Mini. Secondary outcomes included daily steps, time spent in purposeful activity and sedentary behavior, Knee Injury and OA Outcome Score, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Partners in Health Scale, Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire, and Self-Reported Habit Index. Results We enrolled 51 participants (IG: n=26 and DG: n=25). Compared with the IG, the DG accumulated significantly more MVPA time at baseline. The adjusted mean difference in MVPA was 13.1 min per day (95% CI 1.6 to 24.5). A significant effect was also found in the adjusted mean difference in perceived sitting habit at work (0.7; 95% CI 0.2 to 1.2) and during leisure activities (0.7; 95% CI 0.2 to 1.2). No significant effect was found in the remaining secondary outcomes. Conclusions A 12-week multifaceted program with the use of a wearable device, an app, and PT counseling improved physical activity in people with knee OA. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585323; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02585323

Background A key component of the implementation process is identifying potential barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is one of the most commonly used frameworks for this purpose. When applying the TDF, it is critical to understand the context in which behaviours occur. Intersectionality, which accounts for the interface between social identity factors (e.g. age, gender) and structures of power (e.g. ageism, sexism), offers a novel approach to understanding how context shapes individual decision-making and behaviour. We aimed to develop a tool to be used alongside applications of the TDF to incorporate an intersectionality lens when identifying implementation barriers and enablers. Methods An interdisciplinary Framework Committee (n = 17) prioritized the TDF as one of three models, theories, and frameworks (MTFs) to enhance with an intersectional lens through a modified Delphi approach. In collaboration with the wider Framework Committee, a subgroup considered all 14 TDF domains and iteratively developed recommendations for incorporating intersectionality considerations within the TDF and its domains. An iterative approach aimed at building consensus was used to finalize recommendations. Results Consensus on how to apply an intersectionality lens to the TDF was achieved after 12 rounds of revision. Two overarching considerations for using the intersectionality alongside the TDF were developed by the group as well as two to four prompts for each TDF domain to guide interview topic guides. Considerations and prompts were designed to assist users to reflect on how individual identities and structures of power may play a role in barriers and facilitators to behaviour change and subsequent intervention implementation. Conclusions Through an expert-consensus approach, we developed a tool for applying an intersectionality lens alongside the TDF. Considering the role of intersecting social factors when identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing research evidence may result in more targeted and effective interventions that better reflect the realities of those involved.

BACKGROUND Current guidelines emphasize an active lifestyle in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), but up to 90% of patients with OA are inactive. In a previous study, we demonstrated that an 8-week physiotherapist (PT)-led counseling intervention, with the use of a Fitbit, improved step count and quality of life in patients with knee OA, compared with a control. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to examine the effect of a 12-week, multifaceted wearable-based program on physical activity and patient outcomes in patients with knee OA. METHODS This was a randomized controlled trial with a delay-control design. The immediate group (IG) received group education, a Fitbit, access to FitViz (a Fitbit-compatible app), and 4 biweekly phone calls from a PT over 8 weeks. Participants then continued using Fitbit and FitViz independently up to week 12. The delay group (DG) received a monthly electronic newsletter in weeks 1 to 12 and started the same intervention in week 14. Participants were assessed in weeks 13, 26, and 39. The primary outcome was time spent in daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; in bouts ≥10 min) measured with a SenseWear Mini. Secondary outcomes included daily steps, time spent in purposeful activity and sedentary behavior, Knee Injury and OA Outcome Score, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Partners in Health Scale, Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire, and Self-Reported Habit Index. RESULTS We enrolled 51 participants (IG: n=26 and DG: n=25). Compared with the IG, the DG accumulated significantly more MVPA time at baseline. The adjusted mean difference in MVPA was 13.1 min per day (95% CI 1.6 to 24.5). A significant effect was also found in the adjusted mean difference in perceived sitting habit at work (0.7; 95% CI 0.2 to 1.2) and during leisure activities (0.7; 95% CI 0.2 to 1.2). No significant effect was found in the remaining secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS A 12-week multifaceted program with the use of a wearable device, an app, and PT counseling improved physical activity in people with knee OA. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585323; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02585323

To evaluate prospective surveillance and targeted physiotherapy (PSTP) compared to education (EDU) on the prevalence of arm morbidity and describe the associated program cost.Pilot randomized single-blinded controlled trial.Urban with assessments and treatment delivered in hospitals.Women scheduled for breast cancer surgery.Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to PSTP ( n = 21) or EDU ( n = 20) and assessed presurgery and 12 months postsurgery. All participants received usual care, namely, preoperative education and provision of an education booklet with postsurgical exercises. The PSTP group was monitored for arm morbidity every three months and referred for physiotherapy if arm morbidity was identified. The EDU group received three education sessions on nutrition, stress and fatigue management.Arm morbidity was based on changes in the surgical arm(s) from presurgery in four domains: (1) shoulder range of motion, (2) strength, (3) volume, and (4) upper body function. Complex arm morbidity indicated ≥2 domains impaired. Second, the cost of the PSTP program was described.At 12 months, 18 (49%) participants (10 PSTP and 8 EDU) had arm morbidity, with EDU participants presenting more complex arm morbidity compared to PSTP participants. PSTP participants attended 4.4 of 5 assessments with 90% retention. The PSTP program cost was $150 covered by the Health Care Provider and the Patient Out-of-Pocket Travel cost was CAN$40.Our results suggest that PSTP is feasible among women with breast cancer for early identification of arm morbidity. A larger study is needed to determine the cost and effectiveness benefits.