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.

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]

Background: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research. Methods: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies. Results: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided. Conclusions: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.

Background: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research. Methods: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies. Results: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided. Conclusions: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.