Search

OBJECTIVE: To develop sets of core and optional recommended domains for describing and evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs (OAMPs), with a focus on hip and knee Osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi survey involving an international group of researchers, health professionals, health administrators and people with OA. In Round 1, participants ranked the importance of 75 outcome and descriptive domains in five categories: patient impacts, implementation outcomes, and characteristics of the OAMP and its participants and clinicians. Domains ranked as "important" or "essential" by ≥80% of participants were retained, and participants could suggest additional domains. In Round 2, participants rated their level of agreement that each domain was essential for evaluating OAMPs: 0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree. A domain was retained if ≥80% rated it ≥6. In Round 3, participants rated remaining domains using same scale as in Round 2; a domain was recommended as "core" if ≥80% of participants rated it ≥9 and as "optional" if ≥80% rated it ≥7. RESULTS: A total of 178 individuals from 26 countries participated; 85 completed all survey rounds. Only one domain, "ability to participate in daily activities", met criteria for a core domain; 25 domains met criteria for an optional recommendation: 8 Patient Impacts, 5 Implementation Outcomes, 5 Participant Characteristics, 3 OAMP Characteristics and 4 Clinician Characteristics. CONCLUSION: The ability of patients with OA to participate in daily activities should be evaluated in all OAMPs. Teams evaluating OAMPs should consider including domains from the optional recommended set, with representation from all five categories and based on stakeholder priorities in their local context.

QUESTION: For patients with gluteal tendinopathy, what is the cost utility from health system and societal perspectives of three management approaches: education plus exercise, ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection or wait and see? DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a three-group, parallel, randomised clinical efficacy trial. PARTICIPANTS: People aged between 35 and 70 years with image-confirmed gluteal tendinopathy were recruited via advertisements. INTERVENTIONS: Education plus exercise, consisting of 14 visits to a physiotherapist, with detailed instruction on tendinopathy management, twice weekly supervised exercise sessions, daily home exercises, a handout and a CD; corticosteroid injection, consisting of one ultrasound-guided injection and a handout on general tendon care; and 'wait and see', consisting of one visit to a physiotherapist with assurance and advice on staying active whilst respecting pain. OUTCOME MEASURES: Economic outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQol EQ-5D-3L using Australian population preference weights, and total economic costs obtained from participant-reported data collected over the 1-year follow-up period. Missing data (<12% per group) were imputed. Linear regression was used to estimate incremental QALYs and costs between interventions; uncertainty was assessed by calculating 90% confidence intervals, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and confidence ellipses. RESULTS: A total of 204 individuals (82% women) were enrolled. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured education plus exercise over corticosteroid injection (AU$12,719 and $5,592 on societal and health system perspectives, respectively) and over wait and see ($29,258 and $3,444 on societal and health system perspectives, respectively). Complete case analysis and varying the direct intervention costs did not change the (imputed analysis) results, with the exception that corticosteroid injection was less cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed recommendations to support the delivery of best practice therapeutic exercise for people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: A multi-stage, evidence-informed, international multi-disciplinary consensus process that included: 1) a narrative literature review to synthesise existing evidence; 2) generation of evidence-informed proposition statements about delivery of exercise for people with knee and/or hip OA by an international multi-disciplinary expert panel, with statements refined and analysed thematically; 3) an e-Delphi survey with the expert panel to gain consensus on the most important statements; 4) a final round of statement refinement and thematic analysis to group remaining statements into domains. RESULTS: The expert panel included 318 members (academics, health care professionals and exercise providers, patient representatives) from 43 countries. Final recommendations comprised 54 specific proposition statements across 11 broad domains: 1) use an evidence-based approach; 2) consider exercise in the context of living with OA and pain; 3) undertake a comprehensive baseline assessment with follow-up; 4) set goals; 5) consider the type of exercise; 6) consider the dose of exercise; 7) modify and progress exercise; 8) individualise exercise; 9) optimise the delivery of exercise; 10) focus on exercise adherence; and 11) provide education about OA and the role of exercise. CONCLUSION: The breadth of issues identified as important by the international diverse expert panel highlights that delivering therapeutic exercise for OA is multi-dimensional and complex.

Objective: To develop sets of core and optional recommended domains for describing and evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs (OAMPs), with a focus on hip and knee Osteoarthritis (OA). Design: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi survey involving an international group of researchers, health professionals, health administrators and people with OA. In Round 1, participants ranked the importance of 75 outcome and descriptive domains in five categories: patient impacts, implementation outcomes, and characteristics of the OAMP and its participants and clinicians. Domains ranked as "important" or "essential" by & GE;80% of participants were retained, and participants could suggest addi-tional domains. In Round 2, participants rated their level of agreement that each domain was essential for evaluating OAMPs: 0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree. A domain was retained if & GE;80% rated it & GE;6. In Round 3, participants rated remaining domains using same scale as in Round 2; a domain was recommended as "core" if & GE;80% of participants rated it & GE;9 and as "optional" if & GE;80% rated it & GE;7. Results: A total of 178 individuals from 26 countries participated; 85 completed all survey rounds. Only one domain, "ability to participate in daily activities", met criteria for a core domain; 25 domains met criteria for an optional recommendation: 8 Patient Impacts, 5 Implementation Outcomes, 5 Participant Characteristics, 3 OAMP Characteristics and 4 Clinician Characteristics. Conclusion: The ability of patients with OA to participate in daily activities should be evaluated in all OAMPs. Teams evaluating OAMPs should consider including domains from the optional recommended set, with representation from all five categories and based on stakeholder priorities in their local context. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International., Funding Agencies|Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Core Center for Clinical Research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award; Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT) at the Durham VA Health Care System; Region Zealand; European Union [UL1TR002489]; National Health and Medical Research Council [P30AR072580]; Medical Research Futures Fund [19-332]; Medibank Private [CIN 13-410]; Health Research Council of New Zealand; National Health amp; Medical Research Council [801790, 945377]; Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Texas at Austin; NIHR ARC West Midlands; International Association for the Study of Pain John J. Bonica Postdoctoral Fellowship; [HRC 22/555]; [1154217]

QUESTION: What are the core capabilities that physiotherapists need in order to deliver quality telephone-based care? DESIGN: Three-round modified e-Delphi survey. PARTICIPANTS: An international Delphi panel comprising experts in the field, including consumers, physiotherapy researchers, physiotherapy clinicians and representatives of physiotherapy organisations. METHODS: A modified e-Delphi survey was conducted. A draft framework was adapted from a previously developed core capability framework for physiotherapists delivering care via videoconferencing. The panel considered the draft framework of 39 individual capabilities across six domains. Over three rounds, panellists rated their agreement (via Likert or 0-to-10 numerical rating scales) on whether each capability was essential (core) for physiotherapists to deliver telephone-based care. Capabilities achieving consensus, defined as 75% of the panel rating the item at least 7 out of 10 in Round 3, were retained. RESULTS: Seventy-one panellists from 17 countries participated in Round 1, with retention of 89% in Round 2 and 82% in Round 3. The final framework comprised 44 capabilities across six domains: compliance (n = 7 capabilities); patient privacy and confidentiality (n = 4); patient safety (n = 7); telehealth delivery (n = 9); assessment and diagnosis (n = 7); and care planning and management (n = 10). CONCLUSION: This framework outlines the core capabilities that physiotherapists need to provide telephone-based care. It can help inform content of physiotherapy curricula and professional development initiatives in telehealth delivery and provide guidance for physiotherapists providing care over the telephone.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of an online education program about weight management for osteoarthritis on physical therapists' self-reported confidence in knowledge and skills in weight management and attitudes toward obesity. METHODS: In a 2-group randomized controlled trial, 80 physical therapists (58 female physical therapists) were randomized to education or control groups. The theoretically informed and evidence-informed online self-directed training program covered biopsychosocial elements of obesity and weight management. The primary outcome was self-reported confidence in knowledge in weight management using a customized validated tool (scale 14-70, higher scores indicating higher confidence) assessed at baseline and 6 weeks. Secondary measures included confidence in nutrition care, clinical skills in weight management, and weight stigma. Process measures evaluated participant experience. Differences in change between groups were compared using linear regression models adjusted for baseline scores and stratifying variables (clinical setting; confidence in weight management). Moderation analysis was performed using an interaction approach in a linear regression model and multivariable fractional polynomial interaction approach. RESULTS: A total of 79 participants (99%) completed outcome measures at 6 weeks. The education group demonstrated greater improvement in confidence in knowledge than the control group (adjusted mean difference 22.6 units, 95% confidence interval 19.6, 25.5). Greater improvement in knowledge was associated with lower baseline values (interaction P = 0.002). Secondary outcomes showed greater improvements in confidence in skills and nutrition care and in weight stigma domains favoring the education group. Over 90% of participants would recommend the program to peers. CONCLUSION: An online education program improves physical therapists' short-term confidence in knowledge and skills in weight management for people with osteoarthritis and

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disorder for which there is no cure. Current treatments are suboptimal. Exercise is a core treatment for knee OA, with muscle strengthening exercise commonly recommended. Yoga is a mind-body exercise intervention that can improve flexibility, muscle strength, balance, and fitness and potentially reduce symptoms of OA. However, there is a scarcity of robust, high-quality conclusive evidence on the efficacy of yoga in knee OA. We are currently conducting the first randomised comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial of a yoga program compared with a strengthening exercise program in patients with symptomatic knee OA. This study protocol describes the design and conduct of this trial. The YOGA study is a phase III, single-centre, parallel, superiority, randomised, active-controlled trial which will be conducted in Hobart, Australia. One hundred and twenty-six participants (63 in each arm) aged over 40 years with symptomatic knee OA will be recruited from the community and randomly allocated to receive either a 24-week yoga program (3×/week) or a strengthening exercise program (3×/week). The primary outcome will be change in knee pain over 12 weeks, assessed using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes include change in knee pain, patient global assessment, physical function, quality of life, gait speed, biomarkers, and others over 12 and 24 weeks. We will also assess whether the presence of neuropathic pain moderates the effects of yoga compared to strengthening exercise. Additional data, such as cost and resource utilization, will be collected for the cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary analysis will be conducted using an intention-to-treat approach. Adverse events will be monitored throughout the study. Once completed, this trial will contribute to the knowledge of whether yoga can be used as a simple, effective, low-cost option for the management of knee OA, thus saving economic costs in t

Therapeutic exercise is a recommended first-line treatment for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA); however, there is little specific advice or practical resources to guide clinicians in its implementation. As the first in a series of projects by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Rehabilitation Discussion Group to address this gap, we aim in this narrative review to synthesize current literature informing the implementation of therapeutic exercise for patients with knee and hip OA, focusing on evidence from systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. Therapeutic exercise is safe for patients with knee and hip OA. Numerous types of therapeutic exercise (including aerobic, strengthening, neuromuscular, mind-body exercise) may be utilized at varying doses and in different settings to improve pain and function. Benefits from therapeutic exercise appear greater when dosage recommendations from general exercise guidelines for healthy adults are met. However, interim therapeutic exercise goals may also be useful, given that many barriers to achieving these dosages exist among this patient group. Theoretically-informed strategies to improve adherence to therapeutic exercise, such as patient education, goal-setting, monitoring, and feedback, may help maintain participation and optimize clinical benefits over the longer term. Sedentary behavior is also a risk factor for disability and lower quality of life in patients with knee and hip OA, although limited evidence exists regarding how best to reduce this behavior. Current evidence can be used to inform how to implement best practice therapeutic exercise at a sufficient and appropriate dose for patients with knee and hip OA.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of physiotherapy via telehealth could provide more equitable access to services for patients. Videoconference-based telehealth has been shown to be an effective and acceptable mode of service delivery for exercise-based interventions for chronic knee pain; however, specific training in telehealth is required for physiotherapists to effectively and consistently deliver care using telehealth. The development and evaluation of training programs to upskill health care professionals in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) has also been identified as an important priority to improve OA care delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore physiotherapists' experiences with and perceptions of an e-learning program about best practice knee OA management (focused on a structured program of education, exercise, and physical activity) that includes telehealth delivery via videoconferencing. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using individual semistructured telephone interviews, nested within the Physiotherapy Exercise and Physical Activity for Knee Osteoarthritis randomized controlled trial, referred to as the PEAK trial. A total of 15 Australian physiotherapists from metropolitan and regional private practices were interviewed following the completion of an e-learning program. The PEAK trial e-learning program involved self-directed learning modules, a mock video consultation with a researcher (simulated patient), and 4 audited practice video consultations with pilot patients with chronic knee pain. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of five themes (with associated subthemes) were identified: the experience of self-directed e-learning (physiotherapists were more familiar with in-person learning; however, they valued the comprehensive, self-paced web-based modules. Unwieldy technological features could be frustrating); practice makes perfect (physiotherapists benefited from

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a serious disease and has no cure to date. Knee OA is a leading cause of functional limitation (e.g., difficulty walking). Walking speed is 1 method of quantifying difficulty with walking and should be assessed in clinical practice for adults with knee OA because it has prognostic value and is modifiable. Specifically, slow walking speed is associated with increased risk of adverse health outcomes, including all-cause mortality in adults with knee OA and can be modified by engaging in physical activity or exercise. However, at present, there is little consensus on the distance and instructions used to conduct the walk test. Distance is often selected based on space availability, and instruction varies, from asking the participants to walk at a comfortable pace versus as fast as possible. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is to summarize the measurement properties, strengths, and limitations of a fixed-distance walk test ≤ 40 meters in adults with knee OA. Good measurement properties in terms of reliability and validity were observed across the different testing protocols for fixed-distance walk test (i.e., any distance ≤ 40 m and fast- or self-paced). Therefore, clinicians and researchers can select a testing protocol that can safely and consistently be performed over time, as well as provide a practice trial to acclimatize the patients to the fixed-distance walk test.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether exercise therapy, with or without other physical therapy interventions, is superior to placebo intervention for osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO were searched from inception to February 2021. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with OA investigating an intervention involving exercise therapy with a placebo comparator. Data extraction and analysis: Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain, function and quality of life (QoL). Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects model for short- and longer-term follow up. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: 13 RCTs involving 1079 patients were identified and included. Meta-analysis demonstrated improved pain (10 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -1.1 (95%CI -1.7 to -0.4)) and function (8 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -0.8 (95%CI -1.5 to -0.2)) in the short-term with exercise versus placebo, but no significant difference in the longer-term (pain 3 studies; function 3 studies). CONCLUSION: Current evidence demonstrates that exercise therapy is superior to placebo in the short-term for pain and function in OA. The certainty of this evidence is low to very low and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effects.

The aim of this study was to investigate, via an online survey, the experiences of NDIS participants, or their parents/carers, when accessing NDIS funded allied healthcare support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this research project was to give participants, their families and carers a chance to share their experience interacting with the NDIS during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2,391 NDIS participants, family members or carers completed the survey. Of the respondents that had a phone or video based plan review during the pandemic, most were happy, found the technology safe and easy to use and were comfortable communicating over the phone or video. Nearly half said they would likely choose a plan review by phone or video in the future. Of the respondents that were offered a plan extension, most were happy and four in five said they would like the option for plan extensions to continue. Due to the continuing risk of COVID-19 in the Australian community, the NDIA have extended some of the support measures and mechanisms in place to help providers and participants safely deliver and receive supports as we adjust to ‘COVID normal’. In addition, the NDIA have been working with other government agencies and states and territories to ensure State emergency plans are more inclusive of people with disability and to share and discuss initiatives to help respond to issues in the future.

OBJECTIVES: 1) Develop unidimensional instruments to measure osteoarthritis (OA) knowledge among people with hip or knee OA, and 2) assess the structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Hip Osteoarthritis Knowledge Scale (HOAKS) and the Knee Osteoarthritis Knowledge Scale (KOAKS). METHODS: Draft HOAKS and KOAKS were developed and refined following best-practice (COSMIN) guidelines with involvement of consumer research partners. Measurement properties of the HOAKS and KOAKS will be assessed through an online survey. The survey will include the novel HOAKS or KOAKS, the current short form of the Hip or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12/KOOS-12), and items that gather demographic and OA characteristics and explore self-rated OA knowledge. People will be eligible to participate if aged 18 years and older, can communicate in English, and have either hip or knee OA as diagnosed by a health professional or by meeting diagnostic criteria. We aim to obtain 400 complete HOAKS or KOAKS responses and 100 complete HOAKS or KOAKS retest responses one week after initial completion. Rasch analysis will estimate structural validity, internal consistency and cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance. Assessment will include test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient) and absolute measurement error (standard error of measurement; smallest detectable change). CONCLUSION: This study will produce robust unidimensional instruments to measure hip and knee OA knowledge. We anticipate that the HOAKS and KOAKS scales will be useful in clinical and research settings to identify knowledge gaps or evaluate interventions designed to improve knowledge.

QUESTION: What are the core capabilities that physiotherapists need in order to deliver quality care via videoconferencing? DESIGN: A three-round modified e-Delphi survey. PARTICIPANTS: An international Delphi panel comprising a Steering Group and experts in the field, including physiotherapy researchers, physiotherapy clinicians, representatives of physiotherapy organisations, and consumers. METHODS: The draft framework was developed by the research team and Steering Group, based on relevant documents identified within the literature. The panel considered a draft framework of 73 specific capabilities mapped across eight domains. Over three rounds, panellists rated their agreement (Likert or numerical rating scales) on whether each capability was essential (core) for physiotherapists to deliver quality care via videoconferencing. Those capabilities achieving consensus, defined as 75% of the panel ratings being ≥ 7 out of 10 in Round 3, were retained. RESULTS: A total of 130 panellists from 32 countries participated in Round 1, with retention rates of 65% and 60% in Rounds 2 and 3, respectively. The final framework comprised 60 capabilities across seven domains: compliance (n = 7 capabilities); patient privacy and confidentiality (n = 4); patient safety (n = 7); technology skills (n = 7); telehealth delivery (n = 16); assessment and diagnosis (n = 7); and care planning and management (n = 12). CONCLUSION: This framework outlines the specific core capabilities required of physiotherapists to provide quality care via videoconferencing. The core capability framework provides guidance for physiotherapists to deliver care via videoconferencing and will help inform future development of physiotherapy curricula and professional development initiatives in the delivery of telehealth.

BACKGROUND: The internet is used for information related to health conditions, including low back pain (LBP), but most LBP websites provide inaccurate information. Few studies have investigated the effectiveness of internet resources in changing health literacy or treatment choices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the MyBackPain website compared with unguided internet use on health literacy, choice of treatments, and clinical outcomes in people with LBP. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, web-based, participant- and assessor-blinded randomized trial of individuals with LBP stratified by duration. Participants were randomly allocated to have access to the evidence-based MyBackPain website, which was designed with input from consumers and expert consensus or unguided internet use. The coprimary outcomes were two dimensions of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (dimension 2: "having sufficient information to manage my health;" dimension 3: "actively managing my health;" converted to scores 1-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included additional Health Literacy Questionnaire dimensions, quality of treatment choices, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants were recruited, and 321 (70.9%) completed the primary outcomes. Access to MyBackPain was not superior to unguided internet use on primary outcomes (dimension 2: mean difference -0.87 units, 95% CI -3.56 to 1.82; dimension 3: mean difference -0.41 units, 95% CI -2.78 to 1.96). Between-group differences in other secondary outcomes had inconsistent directions and were unlikely to be clinically important, although a small improvement of unclear importance in the quality of stated treatment choices at 1 month was found (mean difference 0.93 units, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.84). CONCLUSIONS: MyBackPain was not superior to unguided internet use for health literacy, but data suggest some short-term improvement in treatment choices. Future research should investigate if greater interactivity

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environm