Search

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to understand perceptions that knee osteoarthritis patients have regarding their experiences of guideline-based recommendations within their care received from physiotherapists in private practice. Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview study nested within a larger trial auditing care provided by physiotherapists. Recruited adults ≥ 45 years with knee osteoarthritis across nine primary care physiotherapy practices. Interview questions were anchored around the core elements recommended in guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis and patient perceptions of these were analysed using both content and thematic qualitative analysis approaches. Patient satisfaction with care received was asked at the time of interview. Results Twenty-six patients volunteered for the study (mean 60 years, 58% female). Analysis identified that physiotherapists focused on treating symptoms through quadriceps strengthening exercises, which patients found to be effective, though focussed less on other aspects of evidenced-based care. Patient’s perceived treatment to be effective in relieving pain and enabling them to stay active and they appreciated the positive role that their physiotherapist provided in alleviating their concerns. Overall, patients were satisfied with their physiotherapy care but would have liked more specific osteoarthritis education and longer-term management. Conclusion The description of the physiotherapy-related care received by people with knee osteoarthritis aligns with guideline recommendations, though mainly for strength-related exercise prescription. Despite some perceived shortfalls in care, patients do appear to be satisfied. However, improvements in patient outcomes may be possible if more elements of guideline-base care are regularly provided, including enhancing osteoarthritis education and fostering behaviour change. Trial registration ACTRN12620000188932.

Introduction There is a gap between the care people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) should receive according to evidence-based guidelines and the care they do receive. This feasibility study aims to test the feasibility of developing and implementing a codesigned, physiotherapy-led, multidisciplinary, evidence-based model of care for knee OA, among community physiotherapy practices in Australia, where community practice is defined as a professional physiotherapy business that is not controlled or paid for by the government.Methods and analysis A mixed-methods quasi-experimental (pre/postintervention) study. In the preintervention phase, all consented physiotherapists working in nine metropolitan-based, community physiotherapy practices, and 26 patients with knee OA will be recruited. Patients will be recruited from all practices by the physiotherapists, using the outlined inclusion/exclusion criteria. An audit of physiotherapy treatment notes will occur using a proforma, to gain an understanding of current community physiotherapy treatment and documentation. Patient and physiotherapist interviews will be conducted to determine current practice for the management of knee OA. A codesign phase will follow, where a model of care will be developed by researchers, patients, clinical staff, members of the public and other stakeholders, based on current guidelines for conservative management of knee OA. In the postintervention phase, a further 26 patients will be recruited, and the assessment process repeated to determine whether there is a change in practice. The feasibility outcome measures are: (1) number of patients who are recorded as receiving care according to current evidence-based guidelines; (2) number of patients who have patient-reported outcomes incorporated into their assessment and management plan; and (3) acceptability of the developed model to patients and physiotherapists. The clinical outcomes will include assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (pain, function, etc) in the preintervention and postintervention phases (baseline and 12 weeks) to assess trends towards change in participant symptoms.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of New South Wales human ethics committee (approval number HC180864, approval period 6 February 2019 to 5 February 2024). The preintervention stage of this study is complete. The next stage is to implement the intervention and compare outcomes between the preintervention and postintervention phases. The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences.Trial registration number The preintervention phase of the study is retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number: ACTRN12620000188932. The intervention and postintervention phase of the study is prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number: ACTRN12620000218998.

Abstract Background Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has a high prevalence of anxiety and depression. It is currently uncertain if treatment in patients with CRS with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP) has any impact on improving mental health outcomes. The aims here were to document anxiety and depression in patients with severe CRS and asthma already treated with appropriate medical therapy. We then evaluated whether further maximal treatment with omalizumab improved anxiety and/or depression alongside improvements in CRS and coassociated asthma. Methods Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores along with measures of CRS and asthma severity were recorded according to CRSwNP and CRSsNP status in n = 95 patients with severe CRS and asthma. Of this group, a further n = 23 had omalizumab for associated allergic asthma. Follow‐up measures were collected 16 weeks after omalizumab treatment. Results HADS anxiety and depression prevalence in CRS were 49.47 % and 38.95%, respectively. Within the CRSwNP and CRSsNP group 53.06% and 45.66% had raised HADS‐anxiety scores. Abnormal HADS‐depression scores were present in 40.82% and 36.95% of the CRSwNP and CRSsNP groups, respectively. Correlations for sinonasal outcome test‐22 (SNOT‐22) versus HADS total was r = 0.59 p

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP respectively) can be difficult to treat and biologics offer potential as a future therapeutic intervention. CRS and severe asthma often co-exist. Omalizumab is currently licenced for the treatment of severe allergic asthma. Objective: The aim was to determine which blood biomarkers and treatment variables were associated with clinical response for sinonasal symptoms in patients with allergic CRSsNP and CRSwNP who were treated with omalizumab for severe allergic asthma. Methods: Sinonasal outcome test (SNOT)-22 scores were recorded in a cohort of patients with allergic CRSsNP (n=10) or CRSwNP (n=15) treated with omalizumab for severe asthma according to UK guidelines. Using a linear modelling approach, the improvement in the SNOT-22 score as the treatment variable against several disease and treatment predictor variables was modelled. Results: SNOT-22 significantly decreased with omalizumab treatment. Increased blood eosinophil count and omalizumab dosing every two weeks (as opposed to every 4 weeks) were associated with greater reductions in SNOT-22 after 16 weeks of omalizumab treatment. Conclusion: Our study confirms that omalizumab is an effective treatment for CRS, and suggests that improvements are greater in those with eosinophilic disease. Further studies are required to determine long term efficacy and whether this treatment could reduce the need for surgery.