Building the OAChangeMap to improve the service delivery of the New South Wales Osteoarthritis Chronic Care Program: a worked example of using a co-design framework.

OBJECTIVE: The Osteoarthritis Chronic Care Program (OACCP) has been implemented in Australian public hospitals to deliver best-evidence OA care. It is important to ensure that the OACCP continues to deliver evidence-based OA care as intended. We aimed to identify barriers and enablers to delivering the OACCP, prioritise the barriers, and generate strategies to address them. METHODS: This study provides a worked example of a seven-step theory-informed co-design framework. We invited OACCP coordinators to participate in semi-structured interviews (analysed thematically) and complete a questionnaire to identify barriers and enablers to delivery of the OACCP. We then invited a broader group of stakeholders (OACCP coordinators, health managers, policy makers, consumers, researchers) to prioritise the barriers via a short survey (survey 2). We held five co-design workshops where we mapped the priority barriers to the Theoretical Domains Framework and developed strategies to address them. RESULTS: Sixteen coordinators were interviewed and the main barriers identified were: 1. patients often have beliefs that are inconsistent with best-evidence care; 2. there are aspects of clinical care that are not delivered optimally; and 3. system level factors are a barrier to optimal patient care and sustainability of the OACCP. We co-designed a plan for action with patient educational materials, shared decision-making tools, and health professional education and training. CONCLUSION: Our worked example of co-design used a theory-based, data driven approach with key stakeholders, identified and prioritised barriers to the delivery of the OACCP, acknowledged enablers, and generated a plan for feasible strategies to improve the program.

Process evaluation of a cluster randomised implementation trial examining strategies to increase early access to exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: First steps for knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a cluster randomised implementation trial examining the effect of an educational reminder message included in knee X-ray reports on the proportion of people subsequently referred to exercise professionals for their knee OA. Evaluating the processes supporting the completion of the study and the efficacy of the reminder message is essential to interpreting the outcomes of the study and aiding translation into practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a concurrent process evaluation throughout the current study using a previously published framework for examining cluster randomised trials. This framework divides processes into those occurring at the cluster level and those at the target population level. For the current study, the cluster level is within radiology clinics. The target population is people with newly diagnosed radiologically evident, structural knee OA. A mixed methods design, incorporating survey data, administrative records, field notes and semi-structured interviews with representatives from radiology clinics and people with knee OA, will evaluate these processes. The focus of the evaluation will be recruitment and response processes of the radiology clinics and delivery and response processes for the people with knee OA. We will also describe the context and explore how the nudge theory of behavioural change influences the outcome of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol, inclusive of the process evaluation, was approved by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (#520221190343842). Findings will be disseminated through national and international conferences, national industry stakeholders and patient advocacy groups to reach all levels of healthcare. Staff at radiology clinics and people with knee OA involved in interviews provide written, informed consent to participate in the process evaluation. Specific findings will be incorporated into training modules aimed at radiology clinics and will be developed by our industry partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001414707p). Registration occurred in December 2022.

Efficacy and safety of an oral complementary medicine combination in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled ATLAS trial.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of an oral complementary medicine combination formulation relative to placebo, on changes in pain intensity from baseline to week 12, in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Design: A placebo-controlled, double-blind, two-arm, superiority, phase II, Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (ACTRN12623000380695). We will recruit 82 participants (∼41 per arm), aged ≥40 years, with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic knee OA and radiographic change on x-ray (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade ≥2). Participants will be randomly allocated to receive either a complementary medicine formulation containing a daily dose of Boswellia serrata extract (Boswellin® Super, 250 â€‹mg/day), pine bark extract (Fenoprolic™ 70 Organic 100 â€‹mg/day), curcumin (500 â€‹mg/day), piperine (5 â€‹mg/day), and methylsulfonylmethane (MSM, 1500 â€‹mg/day), or placebo, for 12-weeks. The primary endpoint will be change from baseline in average knee pain intensity at 12-weeks (visual analogue scale). Secondary endpoints will include change in knee pain from baseline to 12-weeks in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), global assessment of disease activity, global rating of change, and health-related quality of life (AQoL-8D). Ethics and dissemination: This protocol has been approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (#2021/877). Dissemination will occur through lay summaries, infographics, conference abstracts, oral presentations, theses, and scientific publications. Conclusion: This RCT will provide credible evidence about the efficacy and safety of this complementary medicine combination and inform updates to international clinical practice standards on the use of complementary medicines in the management of symptomatic knee OA.

Comparison of weight loss interventions in overweight and obese adults with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the comparative effectiveness of weight-loss strategies for osteoarthritis (OA) to develop rational treatment algorithms aimed at improving OA-related symptoms in overweight/obese individuals. DESIGN: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 2023 for observational studies and randomized trials. Network meta-analyses were performed using a frequentist approach. Effect sizes for pain and function were computed as standardized mean differences, while change in body weight was computed as mean differences. RESULTS: 13 RCTs on knee OA (KOA) (2800 participants) with 7 interventions: diet (D); exercise (E); diet and exercise (DE); pharmacological (L); psychological (P); psychological, diet, and exercise (PDE); and Mediterranean diets (M) were networked. For weight change (kg), all interventions significantly outperformed control comparators, with effect sizes ranging from -11.2 (95% CI, -16.0, -6.5 kg) for the most effective approach (PDE) to -4.7 (95% CI, -6.7, -2.7 kg) for the least effective approach (DE). In terms of pain (0-20 scale), only DE outperformed control comparators (-2.2, 95% CI: -4.1, -0.21), whereas PDE was not superior to control comparators (-3.9, 95% CI: -8.4, 0.5) in improving the pain. Regardless of the chosen intervention, prediction intervals from meta-regression analysis indicate that significant pain relief may be anticipated when patients achieve at least a weight reduction of 7%. CONCLUSIONS: PDE and DE interventions may offer the most effective approach for weight loss, potentially leading to improvements in pain and physical function among overweight/obese individuals with KOA if they achieve more than 7% weight loss.

Psychosocial factors in knee osteoarthritis: Scoping review of evidence and future opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Identify, describe and produce an evidence map of studies investigating psychosocial factors association with, or effect on, clinical outcomes for people with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Scoping review of interventional and observational studies was performed. Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo and Web of Science were searched on the 15th May 2023. Screening, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent researchers. Extracted information included characteristics of studies plus which psychosocial factors were used to investigate association with, or effect on, clinical outcome(s). Descriptive statistics summarized the study design, temporal trend, geographic distribution, frequency of each psychosocial factor and whether associations/effects were observed. RESULTS: 23,065 records were screened, with 108 studies selected. Eighty-two percent of studies (n = 89/108) were cross-sectional in design. Number of studies increased over time and spanned 28 countries. Most research originated from the Americas region (55 %, 59/108). Twenty-four psychosocial factors (11 psychological, 13 social) were identified. Depression (47 %, n = 48/102) and education (28 %, n = 29/102) were the most frequently reported psychological and social factors, respectively. Psychological factors were often reported to have an association with/effect on pain (81 %, n = 71/88) and physical function (75 %, n = 56/74). Social factors were less frequently reported to have an association with or effect on pain (57 %, n = 46/81) and physical function (50 %, n = 18/36). CONCLUSION: Psychosocial factors are often associated with clinical outcomes for people with knee osteoarthritis. High-quality longitudinal studies examining a wide range of psychosocial factors across diverse cultural and geographical settings are key to continue informing the development of biopsychosocial models of care.

Does neighbourhood deprivation influence low back pain and arthritis: An empirical study using multilevel twin design.

OBJECTIVE: Neighbourhood deprivation has been found to be associated with many health conditions, but its association with low back pain (LBP) and arthritis is unclear. This study aimed to examine the association between neighbourhood deprivation with LBP and arthritis, and its potential interaction with individual socioeconomic status (SES) on these outcomes. METHODS: Monozygotic (MZ) twins from the Washington State Twin Registry were used to control for genetic and common environmental factors that could otherwise confound the purported relationship. Multilevel models were employed to examine the association between neighbourhood deprivation as well as individual-level SES with LBP/arthritis, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and residence rurality. RESULTS: There were 6,380 individuals in the LBP sample and 2,030 individuals in the arthritis sample. Neighbourhood deprivation was not associated with LBP (P = 0.26) or arthritis (P = 0.61), and neither was its interaction with individual-level SES. People without a bachelor's degree were more likely to report LBP (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.26-1.65) or both LBP and arthritis (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.45) than those with a bachelor's degree, but not for arthritis alone (P = 0.17). Household income was not significantly associated with LBP (P = 0.16) or arthritis (p = 0.23) independent of age, sex, and BMI. CONCLUSION: Our study did not find significant associations between neighbourhood deprivation and the presence of LBP or arthritis. More research using multilevel modelling to investigate neighbourhood effects on LBP and arthritis is recommended.

Appraisal of quality and analysis of the similarities and differences between osteoarthritis Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aim to support management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), but recommendations are often conflicting and implementation is poor, contributing to evidence-to-practice gaps. This systematic review investigated the contextual and methodological factors contributing to conflicting recommendations for hip and knee OA. METHOD: Our systematic review appraised CPGs for managing hip and knee OA in adults ≥18 years (PROSPERO CRD42021276635). We used AGREE-II and AGREE-REX to assess quality and extracted data on treatment gaps, conflicts, biases, and consensus. Heterogeneity of recommendations was determined using Weighted Fleiss Kappa (K). The relationship between (K) and AGREE-II/AGREE-REX scores was explored. RESULTS: We identified 25 CPGs across eight countries and four international organisations. The ACR, EULAR, NICE, OARSI and RACGP guidelines scored highest for overall AGREE-II quality (83%). The highest overall AGREE-REX scores were for BMJ Arthroscopy (80%), RACGP (78%) and NICE (76%). CPGs with the least agreement for pharmacological recommendations were ESCEO and NICE (-0.14), ACR (-0.08), and RACGP (-0.01). The highest agreements were between RACGP and NICE (0.53), RACGP and ACR (0.61), and NICE and ACR (0.91). Decreased internal validity determined by low-quality AGREE scores(<60%) in editorial independence were associated with less agreement for pharmacological recommendations. CONCLUSION: There were associations between guideline quality and agreement scores. Future guideline development should be informed by robust evidence, editorial independence and methodological rigour to ensure a harmonisation of recommendations. End-users of CPGs must recognise the contextual factors associated with the development of OA CPGs and balance these factors with available evidence.

The OARSI Joint Effort Initiative: Priorities for osteoarthritis management program implementation and research 2024-2028.

Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative (JEI) is an international collaboration of clinicians, researchers, and consumer organisations with a shared vision of improving the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify JEI's future priorities and guide direction. Design: A two-part international survey to prioritise topics of importance to our membership and research stakeholders. Survey one presented a list of 40 topics under 5 themes. Consenting participants were asked to choose their top three topics in each theme. A short list of 25 topics was presented in survey two. Participants were asked to rank the importance (100-point NRS scale, 100 â€‹= â€‹highest priority). Response frequency (median, IQR) was used to rank the top priorities by theme. Results: Ninety-five participants completed survey one (61% female, 48% clinicians) and 57 completed survey two. The top ranked topic/s were:i. Promotion and advocacy: support training for health professionals (median 85, IQR 24).ii. Education and training: incorporating behaviour change into OAMPs (80, 16), advanced OA skills (80, 30), and integration of OA education into clinical training (80, 36).iii. Improving OAMPs delivery: regular updates on changes to best-evidence OA care (84, 24).iv. Future research: improve uptake of exercise, physical activity, and weight-loss (89, 16).v. Enhancing relationships, alliances, and shared knowledge: promote research collaborations (81, 30), share challenges and opportunities for OAMP implementation (80, 23). Conclusions: These topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

Taking the first step: protocol for a cluster randomised implementation trial comparing strategies on access to exercise programmes for people with knee osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: This cluster randomised implementation trial will assess the effect of two behavioural change interventions on the proportion of people with structural knee osteoarthritis (OA) referred and attending exercise-based professionals (physiotherapists and exercise physiologists). The interventions are designed to increase awareness of guidelines, benefits and access pathways for exercise therapy. We hypothesise either strategy will result in more people with knee OA being referred and attending physiotherapy/exercise physiology than current standard of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit 30 radiology clinics. 10 clinics will be randomly assigned to each trial arm with 1020 people with knee OA consecutively recruited (102 people per practice) into each arm. Intervention arm 1 is an educational reminder message targeted at primary care practitioners with a hyperlink to national guidelines regarding knee OA clinical management. It will be included in the reporting template of a plain knee X-ray. Intervention arm 2 is the reminder message and a patient-facing infographic explaining the benefits and access pathways for exercise. Both interventions will be delivered once, by the radiology clinics, when a person undergoes plain X-ray for non-traumatic knee pain/dysfunction. The primary outcome is referral to physiotherapist/exercise physiology. The secondary outcome is attendance to that appointment. Both outcomes are self-reported via an online survey administered 4 weeks after the X-ray. Additional survey questions explore facilitators and barriers to appointment attendance and acceptability of the interventions. A subsample of the intervention groups will be recruited for semistructured telephone-based interviews to further explore these latter outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (#520221190343842) and prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. We will engage with Australian physician colleges and main-stream media to distribute findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001414707p.

Effectiveness of a New Service Delivery Model for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and health costs of a new primary care service delivery model (the Optimising Primary Care Management of Knee Osteoarthritis [PARTNER] model) to improve health outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to usual care. METHODS: This study was a 2-arm, cluster, superiority, randomized controlled trial with randomization at the general practice level, undertaken in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. We aimed to recruit 44 practices and 572 patients age ≥45 years with knee pain for >3 months. Professional development opportunities on best practice OA care were provided to intervention group general practitioners (GPs). All recruited patients had an initial GP visit to confirm knee OA diagnosis. Control patients continued usual GP care, and intervention patients were referred to a centralized care support team (CST) for 12-months. Via telehealth, the CST provided OA education and an agreed OA action plan focused on muscle strengthening, physical activity, and weight management. Primary outcomes were patient self-reported change in knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale [range 0-10; higher score = worse]) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale [range 0-100; higher score = better] at 12 months. Health care cost outcomes included costs of medical visits and prescription medications over the 12-month period. RESULTS: Recruitment targets were not reached. A total of 38 practices and 217 patients were recruited. The intervention improved pain by 0.8 of 10 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.2, 1.4) and function by 6.5 of 100 points (95% CI 2.3, 10.7), more than usual care at 12 months. Total costs of medical visits and prescriptions were $3,940 (Australian) for the intervention group versus $4,161 for usual care. This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model improved knee pain and function more than usual GP care. The magnitude of improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful for pain but is uncertain for function.

Best Evidence Osteoarthritis Care: What Are the Recommendations and What Is Needed to Improve Practice?

This article provides an overview of osteoarthritis (OA) management recommendations and strategies to improve clinical practice concordance with clinical guidelines. In many countries, the primary point of care for a person with OA is typically general practitioners and physiotherapists. Optimal primary care focuses on core OA treatments, namely education for self-management and lifestyle interventions encompassing increased physical activity, therapeutic exercise, and weight loss (if indicated). Quality indicators are used in clinical practice and research to determine the quality of care and in some settings, are used as knowledge translation tools to address existing evidence-to-practice gaps.

A Framework to Guide the Development of Health Care Professional Education and Training in Best Evidence Osteoarthritis Care.

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.

Realizing Health and Well-being Outcomes for People with Osteoarthritis Beyond Health Service Delivery.

Improving the health and well-being of people with osteoarthritis (OA) requires effective action beyond health service delivery. Integration of the different contexts and settings in which people live, work, and socialize, also known as the social determinants of health (SDH), with health care has the potential to provide additional benefits to health and well-being outcomes compared with traditional OA care. This article explores how SDH can impact the lives of people with OA, how SDH intersect at different stages of OA progression, and opportunities for integrating SDH factors to address the onset and management of OA across the life course.

Best-practice clinical management of flares in people with osteoarthritis: A scoping review of behavioral, lifestyle and adjunctive treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Transient episodes of increased pain, stiffness or swelling are common in people with osteoarthritis (OA). Yet, evidence-based management strategies for lessening the impact of OA flares are rarely covered in clinical guidelines and have been identified as a gap by clinicians delivering OA care. We aimed to identify evidence on behavioral, lifestyle or other adjunctive flare management strategies that could be used by clinicians or consumers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search between 1990-2020 was performed in three databases using a scoping methodology. We included qualitative or quantitative studies, and reviews that examined OA flare management, or that reported OA flare outcomes at timepoints ≤2 weeks post-intervention. Outcomes included any physical or psychological OA outcome treatable with a therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: We included 9 studies, all of which examined the relationship between therapeutic exercise/ physical activity and OA flares. All studies reported pain outcomes at the knee. Two also included the hip. Only two studies examined specific management strategies for OA flares. Both favorably reported the benefits of undertaking an exercise program modified accordingly during an episode, but the quality of the evidence was low. DISCUSSION: This scoping review highlights the paucity of evidence available on non-pharmacological treatments of OA flare management that could influence clinical practice. At present, there is no robust evidence to support or reject any specific therapies for OA flare management in clinical practice. Future work is needed, particularly around outcomes beyond pain, trajectories of symptom improvement, and for joints other than the knee.

How can neighborhood environments facilitate management of osteoarthritis: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The association between neighborhood environments and health outcomes has long been recognized, but the importance of environmental factors is less well examined in osteoarthritis (OA). We aimed to give an overview of the literature examining the role of neighborhood built environments in the context of OA self-management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search between 2000 and 2019 was performed using a scoping methodology. Literature examining the influence of neighborhood built environments on health and other outcomes in people with OA, mixed or unspecified arthritis were screened by two independent reviewers. Seven domains were pre-determined based on the World Health Organization European Healthy Cities Framework. Sub-domains and themes were synthesized from the literature. RESULTS: We included 27 studies across seven pre-determined domains, 23 sub-domains. We identified 6 key outcomes of physical activity, quality of life, community participation, resource use, psychological health, and other physical health. The majority of studies emphasized the importance of neighborhood built environment on supporting OA self-management, particularly for facilitating physical activity. The impacts on other outcomes were also considered important but were less well studied, especially access to healthy food. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the potential of better using the built environment to support OA management to address many different outcomes. Understanding the impacts of different environments is the first step, and designing new and novel ways to utilize neighborhoods is needed. Implementing strategies and public policies at a neighborhood level may be a more viable way to curb further increases in the OA epidemic than addressing individual factors alone.

Implementation of Best-Evidence Osteoarthritis Care: Perspectives on Challenges for, and Opportunities From, Low and Middle-Income Countries.

The "Joint Effort Initiative" (JEI) is an international consortium of clinicians, researchers, and consumers under the auspices of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The JEI was formed with a vision to improve the implementation of coordinated programs of best evidence osteoarthritis care globally. To better understand some of the issues around osteoarthritis care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the JEI invited clinician researcher representatives from South Africa, Brazil, and Nepal to discuss their perspectives on challenges and opportunities to implementing best-evidence osteoarthritis care at the OARSI World Pre-Congress Workshop. We summarize and discuss the main themes of the presentations in this paper. The challenges to implementing evidence-based osteoarthritis care identified in LMICs include health inequities, unaffordability of osteoarthritis management and the failure to recognize osteoarthritis as an important disease. Fragmented healthcare services and a lack of health professional knowledge and skills are also important factors affecting osteoarthritis care in LMICs. We discuss considerations for developing strategies to improve osteoarthritis care in LMICs. Existing opportunities may be leveraged to facilitate the implementation of best-evidence osteoarthritis care. We also discuss strategies to support the implementation, such as the provision of high-quality healthcare professional and consumer education, and systemic healthcare reforms.

PARTNER: a service delivery model to implement optimal primary care management of people with knee osteoarthritis: description of development.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation strategies, such as new models of service delivery, are needed to address evidence practice gaps. This paper describes the process of developing and operationalising a new model of service delivery to implement recommended care for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a primary care setting. METHODS: Three development stages occurred concurrently and iteratively. Each stage considered the healthcare context and was informed by stakeholder input. Stage 1 involved the design of a new model of service delivery (PARTNER). Stage 2 developed a behavioural change intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) using the behavioural change wheel framework. In stage 3, the 'Care Support Team' component of the service delivery model was operationalised. RESULTS: The focus of PARTNER is to provide patients with education, exercise and/or weight loss advice, and facilitate effective self-management through behavioural change support. Stage 1 model design: based on clinical practice guidelines, known evidence practice gaps in current care, chronic disease management frameworks, input from stakeholders and the opportunities and constraints afforded by the Australian primary care context, we developed the PARTNER service-delivery model. The key components are: (1) an effective GP consultation and (2) follow-up and ongoing care provided remotely (telephone/email/online resources) by a 'Care Support Team'. Stage 2 GP behavioural change intervention: a multimodal behavioural change intervention was developed comprising a self-audit/feedback activity, online professional development and desktop software to provide decision support, patient information resources and a referral mechanism to the 'Care Support Team'. Stage 3 operationalising the 'care support team'-staff recruited and trained in evidence-based knee OA management and behavioural change methodology. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model is the result of a comprehensive implementation strategy development process using evidence, behavioural change theory and intervention development guidelines. Technologies for scalable delivery were harnessed and new primary evidence was generated as part of the process.Trial registration number ACTRN12617001595303 (UTN U1111-1197-4809).