Search

ObjectivesTo investigate the temporal trends and ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cruciate ligament (CL) injury incidence and associated costs in New Zealand over a 14-year period.MethodsAll CL injury claims lodged between 2007 and 2020 were extracted from the Accident Compensation Corporation (a nationwide no-fault injury compensation scheme) claims dataset. Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted incidence rates, total injury costs and costs per claim were calculated for each year for total population and subgroups.ResultsThe total number of CL injury claims increased from 6972 in 2007 to 8304 in 2019, then decreased to 7068 in 2020 (likely due to widespread COVID-19 restrictions; analysis is therefore restricted to 2007–2019 hereafter). The (age-adjusted and sex-adjusted) incidence rate remained largely unchanged and was 173 cases per 100 000 people in 2019. There was a 127% increase in total injury claims costs and a 90% increase in costs per claim. Pacific people had the highest incidence rate and costs per 100 000 people, while Asians had the lowest; European, Māori and ‘other’ ethnicities had similar incidence rates and total costs. Incidence rates and total costs increased with income and decreased with neighbourhood deprivation. Costs per claim differed little by ethnicity, but increased with income level.ConclusionThe number and costs of CL injury claims in New Zealand are increasing. There are ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in CL incidence rates and costs, which are important to address when designing CL injury prevention programmes and programmes aimed at improving equity of access to medical care.

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE The Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) recommends assessment of physical function using a performance-based test of stair negotiation, but was unable to recommend any specific test. We assessed the reliability, validity, responsiveness, measurement error, and minimum important change (MIC) of the 6-step timed Stair Climb Test (SCT). METHODS We used pooled data from 397 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis (54% women) from four clinical trials (86% retained at 12-week follow-up). Construct validity was assessed by testing six a priori hypotheses against other OARSI-recommended physical function measures. A self-reported Global Rating of Change scale was used to classify participants as worsened, improved and stable. Participants who worsened in physical function were excluded from all analyses. Responsiveness and MIC were assessed using multiple anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. Test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC) were assessed on stable participants. RESULTS Five of six hypotheses (83%) for construct validity were met. Test-retest reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient2,1 : 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.71, 0.90). The SEM and SDC values were 0.44 and 1.21 seconds respectively. We did not find adequate support for responsiveness. The MIC values ranged from 0.78 to 1.95 seconds using different approaches (median=1.37 seconds). CONCLUSION The 6-step timed SCT adequately assesses the construct of physical function in individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis with excellent 12-week test-retest reliability. However, support for its responsiveness was inadequate to recommend its use as an outcome measure in people with osteoarthritis for research and clinical practice.

Accurate knowledge is central to effective self-care of osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to assess the measurement properties of the Osteoarthritis Knowledge Scale (OAKS) with versions for the hip and knee.Participants with hip OA (n = 144), knee OA (n = 327), and no OA (n = 735) were recruited. Rasch analysis was conducted to assess psychometric properties using data from all participants with hip OA and 144 randomly selected participants with either knee OA or no OA. Test-retest reliability and measurement error were estimated among those with hip (n = 51) and knee (n = 142) OA.Four items from the draft scales were deleted following Rasch analysis. The final 11-item OAKS was unidimensional. Item functioning was not affected by gender, age, educational level, or scale version (hip or knee). Person separation index was 0.75. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74, 0.86; hip version 0.66 [0.47, 0.79]; knee version 0.85 (0.79, 0.90)). Smallest detectable change was 9 points (scale range 11-55; hip OA version 11 points; knee OA version 8 points).The OAKS is a psychometrically adequate, unidimensional measure of important OA knowledge that can be used in populations with and without hip and knee OA. Caution is needed when using with populations with only hip OA as test-retest reliability of the hip version did not surpass the acceptable range.

Real-world adherence to clinical practice guidelines is often poor, resulting in sub-standard patient care and unnecessary healthcare costs. This study evaluates the effect of a guideline-implementation intervention for the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice-the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach-on LBP-related injury insurance claims, healthcare utilisation, and costs of treatment.Data were extracted from comprehensive nationwide New Zealand injury insurance claims records. Data were analysed using a 'triple-difference' (difference-in-difference-in-differences) method to isolate the causal effect of FREE training on LBP claims activity, comparing the difference in general practitioner (GP) LBP claims and associated activity before and after training with their non-musculoskeletal injury claims for the same periods (assumed to be unaffected by training), relative to the same comparisons for GPs not trained in the FREE approach.Training GPs in the FREE approach resulted in significant reductions in the number of LBP injury claims lodged (- 19%, 95% CI -34 to -5), the use of physiotherapy (-30%, 95% CI - 42 to - 18) and imaging (- 27%, 95% CI - 46 to - 8%), and the healthcare costs (- 21%, 95% CI - 41 to - 1) of LBP injury. Changes in claims for earnings' compensation (- 10%, 95% CI - 34 to 13) were not significant.A brief guideline-implementation intervention following best-practice LBP management and guideline-implementation strategies achieved significant reductions, persisting over at least 6 to18 months, in healthcare utilisation consistent with improved delivery of guideline-concordant care.

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?Economic evaluation alongside a three-group, parallel, randomised clinical efficacy trial.People aged between 35 and 70 years with image-confirmed gluteal tendinopathy were recruited via advertisements.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.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.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.Education plus exercise for gluteal tendinopathy improves health-related quality of life and is cost-effective compared with corticosteroid injection and wait and see for treating gluteal tendinopathy.ACTRN12612001126808.

Letter to the Editor-in-Chief in response to JOSPT article "The Benefits of Adding Manual Therapy to Exercise Therapy for Improving Pain and Function in Patients with Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis" by Runge et al.

The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a routinely used measure of physical function with a 0–10 response scale. We aimed to develop verbal response options for the PSFS, pre-test it for use in a multilingual, low-literacy country— Nepal, and compare preference and error rates between numeric and verbal scale. We hypothesized that a verbal scale would be preferred by respondents and yield fewer errors. We interviewed 42 individuals with musculoskeletal, neurological, and cardiopulmonary conditions to understand how people describe varying levels of physical ability. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, and through consensus, we developed two sets of verbal responses for the PSFS. Next, we pre-tested the scales on an additional 119 respondents following which participants were asked to specify their preferred scale. Error rates were analyzed retrospectively using pre-specified criteria. Participants described their ability in terms of the quality (95%) and the quantity of task performance (88%). Although the verbal scales were preferred over the numeric scale (50% versus 12%), there was no significant difference in error rates between numeric (34%) and verbal scales (32% and 36%). Higher error rates were associated with greater age, fewer years of education, and inexperience with numeric scales. Despite a higher preference for verbal scale, 1 out of 3 patients made errors in using the PSFS, even with an interview format. The error rates were higher among participants with low literacy. The findings raise questions about the utility of PROMs in countries with low literacy rates.

Osteoarthritis (OA) clinical guidelines recommend self-management education, but education is often not included in primary care consultations.To explore pharmacists' and patients' perceptions of a pharmacist-led model of service delivery for knee OA that was integrated within pharmacies' day-to-day workflow.Cross-sectional qualitative design using Thematic Analysis. Community pharmacies were recruited in New Zealand and Australia. Pharmacy patients were screened for knee OA and offered tailored explanations, self-management information and referral for further support. Pharmacist focus groups and patient 1:1 interviews explored perceptions of the service delivery model.Nineteen pharmacists and 12 patients with knee OA participated. Pharmacist and patient data were analysed separately, with themes compared and contrasted to derive three meta-themes. Meta-theme 1: 'Welcome Engagement' included two pharmacist themes ('putting my broad skill set to use' and 'we're here and happy to help') and two patient themes ('information delivered well' and 'a welcome offer of help'). Meta-theme 2: 'The Knowledgeable and Trustworthy Pharmacist' included two pharmacist themes ('professional knowledge to help all sorts of patients' and 'managing time to help my patients') and one patient theme ('the accessible professional who I know and trust'). Meta-theme 3: 'The Opportunity for More Support' included one pharmacist theme ('this is not the end of the story') and one patient theme ('more help is available').Community pharmacists are well-positioned to provide information and support to people with knee OA. Pharmacists appreciate the opportunity to better use their skills and accessibility for OA care, and patients welcome this engagement.

ObjectivesThis study reports a process evaluation of the Otago MASTER (MAnagement of Subacromial disorders of The shouldER) feasibility trial. This mixed-methods, process evaluation study was conducted parallel to the Otago MASTER feasibility trial. Our aims were to investigate: (1) supervised treatment fidelity of the interventions and (2) clinicians’ perceptions of the trial interventions through a focus group.DesignNested process evaluation study using a mixed-methods approach.SettingOutpatient clinic.ParticipantsFive clinicians (two men, three women) aged 47–67 years, with clinical experience of 18–43 years and a minimum of postgraduate certificate training, were involved with the delivery of interventions within the feasibility trial. We assessed treatment fidelity for supervised exercises through audit of clinicians’ records and compared those with the planned protocol. Clinicians took part in a focus group that lasted for approximately 1 hour. The focus group was transcribed verbatim and focus group discussion was analysed thematically using an iterative approach.ResultsThe fidelity score for the tailored exercise and manual therapy intervention was 80.3% (SD: 7.7%) and for the standardised exercise intervention, 82.9% (SD: 5.9%). Clinicians’ perspectives about the trial and planned intervention were summarised by one main theme ‘conflict experienced between individual clinical practice and the intervention protocol’, which was supported by three subthemes: (1) programme strengths and weaknesses; (2) design-related and administrative barriers; and (3) training-related barriers.ConclusionThis mixed-methods study assessed supervised treatment fidelity of interventions and clinicians’ perceptions on planned interventions tested in the Otago MASTER feasibility trial. Overall, treatment fidelity was acceptable for both intervention arms; however, we observed low fidelity for certain domains within the tailored exercise and manual therapy intervention. Our focus group identified several barriers clinicians faced while delivering the planned interventions. Those findings are of relevance for planning the definite trial and for researchers conducting feasibility trials.Trial registration numberANZCTR: 12617001405303.

To systematically review measurement properties, including acceptability, feasibility, and interpretability, and current uses of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS).Systematic review of a patient-reported outcome measure using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.We searched 11 databases from January 2010 to July 2020 for articles on measurement properties or use of PSFS.Published primary articles without language restrictions.Two independent reviewers screened all records, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessments using COSMIN guidelines. We qualitatively synthesized findings for each measurement property in musculoskeletal and nonmusculoskeletal conditions, and 2 reviewers independently performed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessments. This study was preregistered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/42UZT).Of the 985 articles screened, we included 57 articles on measurement properties and 255 articles on the use of PSFS. The PSFS hadThe PSFS is an easy-to-use, reliable, and responsive scale in numerous musculoskeletal conditions, but the construct validity of PSFS remains uncertain. Further study of the measurement properties of the PSFS in nonmusculoskeletal conditions is necessary before clinical use.

Background Exercise therapy is known to be an effective intervention for patients with osteoarthritis, however the evidence is limited as to whether adding manual therapy or booster sessions are cost-effective strategies to extend the duration of benefits. Objective To investigate the cost-effectiveness, at 2-year follow-up, of adding manual therapy and/or booster sessions to exercise therapy. Design 2-by-2 factorial randomized controlled trial. Methods Participants with knee osteoarthritis were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) to: exercise therapy delivered in consecutive sessions within 9 weeks (control group), exercise therapy distributed over 1 year using booster sessions, exercise therapy plus manual therapy delivered within 9 weeks, and exercise therapy plus manual therapy with booster sessions. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness from health system and societal perspectives interpreted as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Results Of 75 participants, 66 (88 %) were retained at 1-year and 40 (53 %) at 2-year follow-up. All three interventions were cost-effective from both the health system and societal perspectives (INMBs, at 0.5 × GDP/capita willingness to pay (WTP) threshold: $3278 (95%CI -3244 to 9800) and $3904 (95%CI -2823 to 10,632) respectively for booster sessions; $2941 (95%CI -3686 to 9568) and $2618 (95%CI -4005 to 9241) for manual therapy; $270 (95%CI -6139 to 6679) and $404 (95%CI -6097 to 6905) for manual therapy with booster sessions). Conclusion Manual therapy or booster sessions in addition to exercise therapy are cost-effective at 2-year follow-up. The evidence did not support combining both booster sessions and manual therapy in addition to exercise therapy.

Purpose: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Meaurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures have been translated into many languages and have been shown to have strong measurement properties across a wide range of clinical conditions. However, Nepali translations of the PROMIS short forms are not yet available. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PROMIS Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Pain Behavior, Depression, and Sleep Disturbance short forms into Nepali.Methods: We used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation methodology, which incorporated two forward translations, synthesis of the translations, a back-translation, and three independent reviews, harmonization, cognitive debriefing, revisions, and proof reading. The translation and review teams were fluent in Nepali and English and represented five different countries and four continents. We evaluated the short forms for comprehensibility and relevance (two key aspects of the content validity of an instrument), conducting cognitive debriefing with six adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, in compliance with recommendations by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The final version was proofread by two native Nepali speakers before and three new proofreaders after cognitive debriefing.Results: All five short forms were successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted into Nepali while maintaining equivalence to the source.Conclusions: The translation and review team, along with a sample from the target population with chronic musculoskeletal pain and the proofreaders considered all five PROMIS short forms relevant and comprehensible. An important next step is to evaluate the measurement properties of these instruments.

Objectives To investigate the extent to which stated preferences for treatment criteria elicited using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are consistent with the trade-offs (implicitly) applied in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), and the impact of any differences on the prioritization of treatments. Methods We used existing MCDA and CEA models developed to evaluate interventions for knee osteoarthritis in the New Zealand population. We established equivalent input parameters for each model, for the criteria “treatment effectiveness,” “cost,” “risk of serious harms,” and “risk of mild-to-moderate harms” across a comprehensive range of (hypothetical) interventions to produce a complete ranking of interventions from each model. We evaluated the consistency of these rankings between the 2 models and investigated any systematic differences between the (implied) weight placed on each criterion in determining rankings. Results There was an overall moderate-to-strong correlation in intervention rankings between the MCDA and CEA models (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.51). Nevertheless, there were systematic differences in the evaluation of trade-offs between intervention attributes and the resulting weights placed on each criterion. The CEA model placed lower weights on risks of harm and much greater weight on cost (at all accepted levels of willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year than did respondents to the MCDA survey. Conclusions MCDA and CEA approaches to inform intervention prioritization may give systematically different results, even when considering the same criteria and input data. These differences should be considered when designing and interpreting such studies to inform treatment prioritization decisions.

Test the feasibility of conducting an individually randomised controlled trial recruiting people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in community pharmacies and evaluate the impacts of a novel information booklet.People with knee OA were identified by pharmacy staff using clinical criteria and randomised to receive a novel information booklet (intervention) or the currently available written OA resource (active control). Mixed-methods process evaluation assessed participant recruitment, retention, and experience. Participant-reported outcome measures, assessing OA illness perceptions, OA knowledge, fear of movement, and pain when walking at baseline and 4-weeks, were analysed using linear regression models (adjusted for baseline).Of 72 eligible people, 64 were randomised to intervention (n ​= ​33) or control (n ​= ​31). The randomisation sequence was followed correctly and no protocol deviations identified. Mean recruitment rate was 2.7 participants per pharmacy per week. One-in-five participants had no educational qualifications and one-in-four had not received a knee OA diagnosis prior to the trial. Three meta-themes emerged from pharmacist and participant qualitative analysis: 'pleased to be asked'; 'easy process'; and 'successful process'. Three participants were lost to follow-up. At 4 weeks, intervention arm Knee Osteoarthritis Knowledge Scale scores improved (mean difference ​= ​3.6, 95%CI 0.7 to 6.5). Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire scores were similar between groups (mean difference 0.4, 95%CI -3.7 to 4.5).It is feasible to conduct an individually randomised trial in community pharmacy, a potentially effective setting to initiate accessible OA care. A novel information booklet improved OA knowledge, but is unlikely to affect illness perceptions on its own.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Meaurement Information System (PROMIS®) measures have been translated into many languages and have been shown to have strong measurement properties across a wide range of clinical conditions. However, Nepali translations of the PROMIS short forms are not yet available. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PROMIS Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, Pain Behavior, Depression, and Sleep Disturbance short forms into Nepali.We used the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation methodology, which incorporated two forward translations, synthesis of the translations, a back-translation, and three independent reviews, harmonization, cognitive debriefing, revisions, and proof reading. The translation and review teams were fluent in Nepali and English and represented five different countries and four continents. We evaluated the short forms for comprehensibility and relevance (two key aspects of the content validity of an instrument), conducting cognitive debriefing with six adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain, in compliance with recommendations by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The final version was proofread by two native Nepali speakers before and three new proofreaders after cognitive debriefing.All five short forms were successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted into Nepali while maintaining equivalence to the source.The translation and review team, along with a sample from the target population with chronic musculoskeletal pain and the proofreaders considered all five PROMIS short forms relevant and comprehensible. An important next step is to evaluate the measurement properties of these instruments.

The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) is a routinely used measure of physical function with a 0-10 response scale. We aimed to develop verbal response options for the PSFS, pre-test it for use in a multilingual, low-literacy country- Nepal, and compare preference and error rates between numeric and verbal scale. We hypothesized that a verbal scale would be preferred by respondents and yield fewer errors.We interviewed 42 individuals with musculoskeletal, neurological, and cardiopulmonary conditions to understand how people describe varying levels of physical ability. Transcripts were thematically analyzed, and through consensus, we developed two sets of verbal responses for the PSFS. Next, we pre-tested the scales on an additional 119 respondents following which participants were asked to specify their preferred scale. Error rates were analyzed retrospectively using pre-specified criteria.Participants described their ability in terms of the quality (95%) and the quantity of task performance (88%). Although the verbal scales were preferred over the numeric scale (50% versus 12%), there was no significant difference in error rates between numeric (34%) and verbal scales (32% and 36%). Higher error rates were associated with greater age, fewer years of education, and inexperience with numeric scales.Despite a higher preference for verbal scale, 1 out of 3 patients made errors in using the PSFS, even with an interview format. The error rates were higher among participants with low literacy. The findings raise questions about the utility of PROMs in countries with low literacy rates.

Background Total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA) are clinically effective but high cost procedures. The aim of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of THA and TKA in the New Zealand (NZ) healthcare system. Methods Data were collected from 713 patients undergoing THA and 520 patients undergoing TKA at our local public hospital. SF-6D utility values were obtained from participants preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively, and deaths and any revision surgeries from patient records and the New Zealand Joint Registry at minimum 8-year follow-up. A continuous-time state-transition simulation model was used to estimate costs and health gains to 15 years. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost effectiveness. ICERs below NZ gross domestic product (GDP; NZ$60 600) and 0.5 times GDP per capita were considered “cost effective” and “highly cost effective” respectively. Results Cumulative health gains were 2.8 QALYs (THA) and 2.3 QALYs (TKA) over 15 years. Cost effectiveness improved from ICERs of NZ$74,400 (THA) and NZ$93,000 (TKA) at 1 year to NZ$6000 (THA) and NZ$7500 (TKA) at 15 years. THA and TKA were cost effective after 2 years and highly cost effective after 3 years. QALY gains and cost effectiveness were greater in patients with worse preoperative functional status and younger age. Conclusion THA and TKA are highly cost-effective procedures over longer term horizons. Although preoperative status and age were associated with cost effectiveness, both THA and TKA remained cost effective in patients with less severe preoperative scores and older ages.

Purpose of Review: We provide an overview of recent research into the relationship between preoperative opioid use and total joint replacement outcomes. Recent Findings: Recent findings indicate that total joint replacement patients with a history of preoperative opioid use experience higher rates of infection, revision, short-term complications, and prolonged postoperative opioid use, along with fewer improvements in pain and function following surgery. These risks are particularly pronounced among chronic opioid users. While the baseline risk profiles of these patients may contribute to higher rates of adverse outcomes, it is also plausible that certain outcomes are directly impacted by opioid use through mechanisms such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia and immunosuppression. There is little available data on the efficacy of interventions that aim to mitigate these risks. Summary: Well-designed clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of targeted perioperative interventions that aim to improve outcomes for this high-risk surgical population. Where such trials are not feasible, additional high-quality observational studies are necessary to further our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the relationships between opioid use and specific adverse outcomes. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Purpose: There is growing international interest in the implementation of structured osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs) to deliver best evidence osteoarthritis (OA) care. A consortium of researchers, clinicians and consumers concerned with optimising implementation of OAMPs have established the ‘Joint Effort’ Initiative (the Initiative), endorsed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018. A priority action of the Initiative is to evaluate the outcomes and implementation of existing OAMPs.Marked differences between existing international OAMP models include treatments offered, settings and mode of delivery, intensity, duration and health disciplines involved. There is some evidence of effectiveness from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal cohort studies reporting outcomes from OAMPS in different real-world settings, however, this research is still in its infancy. The effects of different OAMP models have not been compared head-to-head and given the prohibitive costs and logistics associated with comparing OAMP models in RCTs, it is unlikely that these trials will take place. Instead, we will leverage research efforts and costs that have already been spent by combining data from existing cohort studies to compare the outcomes of different OAMP models.We aim to combine Individual Patient Data (IPD) from the existing international OAMP cohorts and use meta-analytic techniques to address the following objectives: 1) Compare the short-, medium- and long-term changes in pain, physical function, body weight, Quality of Life, fear of movement and goal achievement between different OAMPs. 2) Determine the short-, medium- and long-term overall effects of OAMPs on pain and physical function for people with knee and hip OA. 3) Examine the characteristics of OAMP participants who achieved/ did not achieve the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria, and completers vs dropouts. 4) Describe the implementation evaluation outcomes of OAMPsMethods: We will use de-identified IPD from nine existing OAMP clinical cohorts from Australia, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, New Zealand and USA. Clinical cohorts will be eligible if they are derived from a hip/knee OAMP in a real-world setting with the following components: i) personalised OA care; ii) package of care with reassessment and progression; iii) minimum of two core treatments of education, exercise, and/or weight-loss, and; iv) optional adjunctive treatments. We will include both published and unpublished data.Based on scoping work on the outcomes measures and time points currently collected by each OAMP, our primary outcomes will be the difference in pain (numerical rating scale 0-10) and function (Western Ontario and McMasters Osteoarthritis Index function score (WOMAC)), at 12-weeks. Secondary outcomes will be changes in pain and function at 26- and 52-weeks. Other secondary outcomes at 12-, 26- and 52- weeks will be changes in: body weight; quality of life (EuroQol, Short Form 12); disease specific measures (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome score, WOMAC); functional performance (30-second chair stand test, six-minute walk test); fear of movement; and patient satisfaction. We will report against the PASS, OMERACT-OARSI definition of responders/non-responders and examine implementation outcomes where available including the Osteoarthritis Quality Indicator Questionnaire, uptake, reach and fidelity.The IPD will be harmonised and aggregated to create one large dataset. We will use descriptive statistics to compare the characteristics of participants across OAMPs. We will take a two-step approach to IPD meta-analytic techniques. First, we will estimate the change in outcomes for each OAMP (pain, function and other outcomes) with multivariable regression modelling. Second, we will weight and pool estimates using random-effects methods to determine the overall effects on pain and function, account for differences in effects across studies and examine prognostic effects and interactions of characteristics (e.g. baseline symptomatic severity, functional performance) of participants who achieved/did not achieve the PASS, OMERACT OARSI responder criteria and those who completed/dropped out of the OAMPs.Results: This study has received ethical approval from the NSLHD Human Research Ethics Committee (Australia). Ethical approval for use of other cohort data is being sought by researchers in their respective countries. We have performed extensive work with the stakeholders involved to identify appropriate co-collected outcomes and will collaborate with the OA Trial Bank to store and collate the cohort data, the first database of its kind.Conclusions: This project will be the first to compare patient and implementation outcomes across international OAMPs. It will address a priority of the Initiative and make recommendations on the “optimal” OAMP model/s to use.

Objectives To investigate whether the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) reflects objective measures of physical function in people with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods In total, 139 people, 71 with RA fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (1987) and 68 with OA fulfilling ACR criteria for OA of the hip or knee, completed the HAQ-DI. Physical function was assessed using Timed Up and Go (TUG), 30 seconds Sit to Stand (STS), grip strength dynamometry and pedometer steps over 7 days. Results The strongest association with HAQ-DI was with the TUG (R2 of 0.671 and 0.512 in RA and OA groups, respectively). HAQ-DI and STS showed a non-linear association in both groups with R2 of 0.380 in RA and 0.359 in OA. A strong association was found between HAQ-DI and grip strength in the OA group (R2 = 0.681), whereas the RA group showed a moderate association (R2 = 0.285). There was a strong association between the HAQ-DI and pedometer measures in RA (R2 = 0.562), although this association was weak in OA (R2 = 0.156). Conclusion The HAQ-DI has a strong association with the TUG in both RA and OA. There was variable association between the HAQ-DI and other physical performance measures, as well as differences between the RA and OA cohorts. In order to form a full and accurate clinical picture, health professionals should perform both subjective patient-reported outcome measures and objective physical performance measures of disability.

Background The objective of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of, and factors associated with, response to a chronic disease management program for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods Over a 2-year period (2012-2014), 218 patients (97 hip OA; 121 knee OA) were managed with an individualized program of interventions that could include education, physiotherapy, orthotics, occupational therapy, or dietitian referral. Changes in Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score and Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical and Mental Component Summary Score (PCS, MCS) were analyzed by joint affected, both unadjusted, and gender and age adjusted. A further analysis also adjusted for body mass index. Results At mean 12-month follow-up, patients with knee OA had a statistically significant improvement in Oxford Knee Score and PCS, while patients with hip OA had a statistically significant deterioration in all 3 scores. There was evidence that these changes differed between joints for Oxford and PCS scores. Older age was associated with worse outcomes for Oxford scores. Higher body mass index was associated with worse outcomes for Oxford and PCS scores. Patients with hip OA (35%) were more likely to deteriorate to a clinically significant extent (5 points) for Oxford scores than those with knee OA. Gender was not associated with outcomes. Patients with hip OA (54%) were more likely than those with knee OA (24%) to have subsequently had surgery (P Conclusions Patients with knee OA were more likely to improve with a chronic disease management plan than patients with hip OA and efforts should be directed to them.

Synopsis Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee is among the leading causes of global disability, highlighting the need for early, targeted, and effective treatment. The benefits of exercise therapy in people with hip and knee OA are substantial and supported by high-quality evidence, underlining that it should be part of first-line treatment in clinical practice. Furthermore, unlike other treatments for OA, such as analgesia and surgery, exercise therapy is not associated with risk of serious harm. Helping people with OA become more physically active, along with structured exercise therapy targeting symptoms and impairments, is crucial, considering that the majority of people with hip and knee OA do not meet physical activity recommendations. Osteoarthritis is associated with a range of chronic comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dementia, all of which are associated with chronic low-grade inflammation. Physical activity and exercise therapy not only improve symptoms and impairments of OA, but are also effective in preventing at least 35 chronic conditions and treating at least 26 chronic conditions, with one of the potential working mechanisms being exercise-induced anti-inflammatory effects. Patient education may be crucial to ensure long-term adherence and sustained positive effects on symptoms, impairments, physical activity levels, and comorbidities. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):439-447. Epub 18 Apr 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7877.

This assessor-, therapist-, and participant-blinded randomised controlled trial evaluated the effects of an automated internet-based pain coping skills training (PCST) program before home exercise for people with clinically diagnosed hip osteoarthritis. One hundred forty-four people were randomised to either the PCST group or the comparator group. In the first 8 weeks, the PCST group received online education and PCST, whereas the comparison group received online education only. From weeks 8 to 24, both groups visited a physiotherapist 5 times for home exercise prescription. Assessments were performed at baseline, 8, 24, and 52 weeks. Primary outcomes were hip pain on walking (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were other measures of pain, quality-of-life, global change, self-efficacy, pain coping, pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, stress, physical activity, and adverse events. Primary outcomes were completed by 137 (95%), 131 (91%), and 127 (88%) participants at 8, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in primary outcomes at week 24 (change in: walking pain [mean difference 0.5 units; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 1.3] and function [-0.9 units; 95% confidence interval, -4.8 to 2.9]), with both groups showing clinically relevant improvements. At week 8, the PCST group had greater improvements in function, pain coping, and global improvement than comparison. Greater pain coping improvements persisted at 24 and 52 weeks. In summary, online PCST immediately improved pain coping and function but did not confer additional benefits to a subsequent exercise program, despite sustained pain coping improvements.

Summary Objective To identify what factors drive choices among interventions for hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to rank the characteristics of interventions. Methods In this phased, mixed-methods design involving cross-sectoral and multi-disciplinary stakeholders – healthcare consumers, providers, policy-makers, Māori health advocates and OA experts – we used the Nominal Group Technique in focus groups to generate data. We conducted thematic analysis of the focus group data to inform a framework of categories and sub-categories describing factors and characteristics influencing the choice of OA interventions. We then used a dual-panel, two-round e− Delphi survey to verify the framework and rank the characteristics of interventions. Results From six focus groups (n = 38 participants), 364 factors were identified and clustered into 56 themes (mean 9 themes per focus group; range 5–15). Thematic analysis revealed a framework of 3 core categories: characteristics of interventions (10 sub-categories), characteristics of consumers (10 sub-categories) and characteristics of the health system (7 sub-categories). In Delphi round 1, the framework was verified by each of two panels (n = 65, ≥80% acceptability). In round 2, two characteristics of interventions were combined, resulting in 9 characteristics (in decreasing order of importance): effectiveness, appropriateness, quality of the evidence, accessibility, harm, cost, duration, passivity, and immediacy of intervention effect. Conclusion Stakeholders make choices among interventions for hip or knee OA within a framework of characteristics of interventions, of consumers, and of the health system. We identified and ranked 9 key characteristics of interventions that stakeholders consider when choosing or recommending interventions for hip or knee OA.

Additional file 1. Mazzei et al PRISMA-P checklist.