EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

Longer-term quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implementing a model of care for osteoarthritis: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over 12 months after implementing a structured model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary healthcare as compared to usual care. DESIGN: In this pragmatic cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a stepped-wedge cohort design, we recruited 40 general practitioners (GPs), 37 physiotherapists (PTs), and 393 patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA from six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The model included the delivery of a 3-hour patient education and 8-12 weeks individually tailored exercise programs, and interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. At 12 months, the patient-reported quality of care was assessed by the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (16 items, pass rate 0-100%, 100%=best). Costs were obtained from patient-reported and national register data. Cost-effectiveness at the healthcare perspective was evaluated using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). RESULTS: Of 393 patients, 109 were recruited during the control periods (control group) and 284 were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). At 12 months the intervention group reported statistically significant higher quality of care compared to the control group (59% vs. 40%; mean difference: 17.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1, 24.0)). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the model of care resulted in quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost-savings compared to usual care with mean INMB €2020 (95% CI 611, 3492) over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that implementing the model of care for OA in primary healthcare, improved quality of care and showed cost-effectiveness over 12 months compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis reported willingness to use remote care and showed high adherence to electronic patient-reported outcome measures: an 18-month observational study.

Remote monitoring using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may improve self-management and reduce the need for consultations. However, knowledge regarding patients' willingness to use remote care and adherence to reporting ePROs is scarce. The objective of this study was to assess axSpA patients' willingness to use remote care and adherence to reporting of ePROs. The study was part of a three-armed randomized controlled trial testing digital follow-up strategies (The ReMonit study, NCT: 05031767). AxSpA patients in low disease activity were randomized to usual care, remote monitoring, or patient-initiated care. Demographics, clinical data, and patients' willingness to use remote care were collected at baseline. EPROs were reported either monthly or quarterly by the remote monitoring- and patient-initiated care group over 18 months, respectively. Adherence to reporting was calculated as number of ePROs completed divided by the total number requested. Mixed model logistic regression was utilized to assess factors associated with adherence to reporting of ePROs. In total 242 patients (median age 43 years, 75% males) were included. The majority (96%) reported high willingness to use remote care. Adherence to reporting ePROs remained high over 18 months by remote monitoring and patient-initiated care groups [median (IQR): 88% (77-100) vs. 83% (66-100)]. No patient characteristics were significantly associated with adherence to reporting of ePROs. The high degree of willingness and adherence to reporting ePROs over time indicates that the majority of axSpA patients with low disease activity are motivated to use remote care.

Willingness, perceived facilitators and barriers to use remote care among healthcare professionals - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Remote care has the potential of improving access to timely care for people with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD), but there is limited knowledge on how this approach is regarded by healthcare professionals (HCP). This study aimed to examine willingness, perceived facilitators, and barriers to use remote care among HCP. METHODS: Employees at 20 rheumatology departments in Norway received a digital survey containing 16 statements regarding willingness, perceived facilitators and barriers to use remote care. Statements were scored using numeric rating scales (NRS, 0-10, 10 = strongly agree), and analysed in linear regression models. Open-ended responses with participant-defined facilitators and barriers were analysed using qualitative manifest analysis. RESULTS: A total of 130 participants from 17 departments completed the survey. The majority of participants were 45 years or older (n = 84, 54%), 54 (42%) were medical doctors, 48 (37%) nurses, and 27 (21%) were allied healthcare professionals, clinical leaders, or secretaries. A high willingness to use remote care was observed (median NRS: 9, IQR 8-10). The facilitator statement with the highest score was that patients save time and costs by using remote care, whereas the barrier statement with the highest score was the lack of physical examination. Willingness to use remote care was positively associated with the belief that patients wish to use it (ß: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34), that patients in remission need less hospital visits (ß: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.43), and if remote care is widely adopted by co-workers (ß: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.39). Willingness was negatively associated with mistrust in the technical aspects of remote care (ß: -0.26, 95% CI:-0.40, -0.11), and lack of physical examination (ß: -0.24, 95% CI: -0.43, -0.06). The open-ended responses showed that technological equipment, eligible patients, user-friendly software, adequate training and work flow could be facilitators, but also that lack of these factors were considered barriers to use remote care. CONCLUSION: This study showed that HCP have a high willingness to use remote care, and provides important new knowledge on perceived facilitators and barriers among HCP relevant for implementation of remote care for eligible patients with IJD.

The efficacy of strength or aerobic exercise on quality of life and knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A multi-arm randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared to usual care on knee-related quality of life (QoL) and knee function at 4 months and 1 year in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared 12 weeks of strength exercise or aerobic exercise (stationary cycling) to usual care supervised by physiotherapists in primary care. We recruited 168 participants aged 35-70 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) QoL at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were self-reported function, pain, and self-efficacy, muscle strength and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) at 4 months and 1 year. RESULTS: There were no differences between strength exercise and usual care on KOOS QoL (6.5, 95% CI -0.9 to 14), or for aerobic exercise and usual care (5.0, 95% CI -2.7 to 12.8), at 1 year. The two exercise groups showed better quadriceps muscle strength, and VO2max at 4 months, compared to usual care. CONCLUSION: This trial found no statistically significant effects of two exercise programs compared to usual care on KOOS QoL at 1 year in individuals with symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis, but an underpowered sample size may explain lack of efficacy between the intervention groups and the usual care group. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01682980.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10. CONCLUSION: The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.

The Measure of Activity Performance of the hand (MAP-Hand) - A reliable and valid questionnaire for use in patients with hand osteoarthritis with specific involvement of the thumb.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional methodological study with test-retest design. INTRODUCTION: The Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) is an assessment tool measuring hand-related activity limitations. PURPOSE: To assess reliability, validity, and interpretability of the MAP-Hand in patients with hand osteoarthritis with specific involvement of the thumb (CMC1). METHODS: One hundred-and-eighty patients referred to surgical consultation for hand osteoarthritis affecting the CMC1 were included in the evaluation of validity and interpretability. Among these, 59 stable patients were included in reliability analyses, completing the questionnaire twice with a 2-week retest interval. The MAP-Hand has 18 predefined and 5 optional patient-specific items, scored on a 4-point scale (1 = no difficulty to 4 = not able to do). Relative (ICC2.1) and absolute (SDC95%ind) reliability were calculated. An ICC of >0.70 was considered acceptable. Nine (75%) or more of 12 predetermined hypotheses had to be confirmed for acceptable construct validity. Interpretability was assessed using floor and ceiling effects and considered present if 15% scored at eitherend of the scale. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 63 (8) years, and most patients were women (79%). The mean total score of predefined items showed acceptable reliability (ICC2.1 0.74, SDC95%ind 0.60) and construct validity. The mean total score of the patient-specific items did not reach acceptable reliability. Ceiling effect was found for the predefined items. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We found that the mean total score of the predefined items on MAP-Hand had acceptable reliability and construct validity but a ceiling effect in patients with hand osteoarthritis with CMC1 affection.

Improving osteoarthritis management in primary healthcare: results from a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in a Norwegian municipality initiated an intervention. The intervention aimed to increase provision of core OA treatment (information, exercise, and weight control) prior to referral for surgery, rational use of imaging for assessing OA and improve communication between healthcare professionals. This study assessed the effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: Forty-eight PTs and one hundred one GPs were invited to the intervention that included two interactive workshops outlining best practice and an accompanying template for PT discharge reports. Using interrupted time series research design, the study period was divided into three: pre-implementation, transition (implementation) and post-implementation. Comparing the change between pre- and post-implementation, the primary outcome was patient-reported quality of OA care measured with the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of PT discharge reports, information included in GP referral letters to orthopaedic surgeon, the proportion of GP referral letters indicating use of core treatment, and the use of imaging within OA assessment. Analyses involved linear mixed and logistic regression models. RESULTS: The PT workshop had 30 attendees, and 31 PTs and 33 GPs attended the multidisciplinary workshop. Two hundred eight and one hundred twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire during pre- and post-implementation, respectively. The adjusted model showed a small, statistically non-significant, increase in mean total score for quality of OA care (mean change = 4.96, 95% CI -0.18, 10.12, p:0.057), which was mainly related to items on OA core treatment. Patients had higher odds of reporting receipt of information on treatment alternatives (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% CI 1.08, 3.24) and on self-management (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.33, 4.32) in the post-implementation phase. There was a small, statistically non-significant, increase in the proportion of GP referral letters indicating prior use of core treatment modalities. There were negligible changes in the number of PT discharge reports, in the information included in the GP referral letters, and in the use of imaging for OA assessment. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a primary care intervention including two inter-active workshops can shift the quality of care towards best practice recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02876120 .

Use of video consultations in an outpatient rheumatology clinic. / Bruk av videokonsultasjon ved en revmatologisk poliklinikk.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of video consultations as an alternative to hospital face-to-face consultations was advanced for persons with rheumatic diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital. Video consultations were introduced in March 2020, and this article presents the experiences gained by healthcare professionals and patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data was collected in June 2020 through focus-group interviews with healthcare professionals and through an anonymous online survey of patients who had attended video consultations during a period of three weeks in June 2020. RESULTS: The data from the focus-group interviews with seven rheumatologists and seven nurses were sorted into main thematic categories: patient, healthcare professional, consultation, and technology. The healthcare professionals felt that video consultations, with some exceptions, were appropriate in the follow-up of patients with rheumatic diseases, and especially for stable patients with no confounding issues. Of the 383 patients who were invited to participate, 139 (36 %) responded to the survey. The patients were largely satisfied with the video consultation, with a median score of 10 (quartiles 8-10) on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10, however, 32 (27 %) patients considered the lack of clinical examination to be detrimental. INTERPRETATION: Video consultations are often appropriate in the follow-up of patients with a rheumatic disease.

Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated osteoarthritis care model: secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. METHODS: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (ORadjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02333656. Registered 7. January 2015.

Implementing a structured model for osteoarthritis care in primary healthcare: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international recommendations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this model in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial with stepped-wedge cohort design in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) between January 2015 and October 2017. The randomised order was concealed to the clusters until the time of crossover from the control to the intervention phase. The intervention was implementation of the SAMBA model, facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners and physiotherapists with an update on OA treatment recommendations. Patients in the intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education and individually tailored exercise programme for 8-12 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0-100, 100 = optimal quality) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported referrals to physiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity level; and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). In all, 40 of 80 general practitioners (mean age [SD] 50 [12] years, 42% females) and 37 of 64 physiotherapists (mean age [SD] 42 [8] years, 65% females) participated. They identified 531 patients, of which 393 patients (mean age [SD] 64 [10] years, 71% females) with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included. Among these, 109 patients were recruited during the control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). The patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score of 60 versus 41, mean difference 18.9; 95% CI 12.7, 25.1; p < 0.001) and higher satisfaction with OA care (odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% CI 6.44, 22.72; p < 0.001) compared to patients in the control group. The increase in quality of care was close to, but below, the pre-specified minimal important change. In the intervention group, a higher proportion was referred to physiotherapy (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.08, 5.73; p = 0.03), a higher proportion fulfilled physical activity recommendations (OR 9.3; 95% CI 2.87, 30.37; p < 0.001), and a lower proportion was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08, 0.80; p = 0.02), as compared to the control group. There were no significant group differences regarding referral to MRI (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.13, 2.38; p = 0.42) and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.70, 2.51; p = 0.34). Study limitations include the imbalance in patient group size, which may have been due to an increased attention to OA patients among the health professionals during the intervention phase, and a potential recruitment bias as the patient participants were identified by their health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a structured model in primary care resulted in higher quality of OA care as compared to usual care. Future studies should explore ways to implement the structured model for integrated OA care on a larger scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Correction: Implementing a structured model for osteoarthritis care in primary healthcare: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002949.].

Non-pharmacological treatment gap preceding surgical consultation in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) in the thumb carpometacarpal joint (CMCJ) is a prevalent disease which may lead to structural damage, severe pain and functional limitations. Evidence-based treatment recommendations state that all patients with hand OA should be offered non-pharmacological treatment. Surgery should be considered only when other treatment has proven insufficient in relieving pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate prior treatment and characteristics of patients referred to specialist health care surgical consultation due to CMCJ OA. The study includes exploring differences in pain and function between referred and non-referred hand, between men and women, and between patients with and without OA affection of other finger joints than CMCJ. METHODS: Patients in this cross-sectional study reported prior non-pharmacological treatment for CMCJ OA. Patient demographics, disease and functional variables were assessed based on hand radiographs, patient-reported and observer-based outcome measures. Differences in pain and function between referred and non-referred hand, men and women, and between patients with and without additional affection of finger joints other than CMCJ, were analysed using Paired-samples T-tests, Wilcoxon Signed Rank, or Chi-Square tests. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty patients were included. The mean age was 63 years and 79% were women. Only 21% reported having received non-pharmacological treatment before referral to surgical consultation. The results show a statistically significant worse function for referred hands, women and involvement of additional interphalangeal joints. Most patients reported no pain or mild pain in their referred hand. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show a non-pharmacological treatment gap in OA care. Most patients report no pain or mild pain, and that they had not received non-pharmacological treatment prior to being referred to CMCJ OA surgical consultation. The results furthermore show that CMCJ OA negatively affects all aspects of function. Strategies need to be developed to improve OA care, including educating general practitioners in evidence-based treatment recommendations and in the assessment of hand pain, and encourage the routine referral of patients with symptomatic hand OA to occupational therapy before considering surgery.

The Ottawa Panel guidelines on programmes involving therapeutic exercise for the management of hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE:: To identify programmes involving therapeutic exercise that are effective for the management of hand osteoarthritis and to provide stakeholders with updated, moderate to high-quality recommendations supporting exercises for hand osteoarthritis. METHODS:: A systematic search and adapted selection criteria included comparable trials with exercise programmes for managing hand osteoarthritis. Based on the evaluated evidence, a panel of experts reached consensus through a Delphi approach endorsing the recommendations. A hierarchical alphabetical grading system (A, B, C+, C, C-, D-, D, D+, E, F) was based on clinical importance (≥15%) and statistical significance ( P < 0.05). RESULTS:: Ten moderate- to high-quality studies were included. Eight studies with programmes involving therapeutic exercise (e.g. range of motion (ROM) + isotonic + isometric + functional exercise) seemed to be effective. Forty-six positive grade recommendations (i.e. A, B, C+) were obtained during short-term (<12 weeks) trials for pain, stiffness, physical function, grip strength, pinch strength, range of motion, global assessment, pressure pain threshold, fatigue and abductor pollicis longus moment and during long-term (>12 weeks) trials for physical function and pinch strength. CONCLUSION:: Despite that many programmes involving exercise with positive recommendations for clinical outcomes are available to healthcare professionals and hand osteoarthritis patients that aid in the management of hand osteoarthritis, there is a need for further research to isolate the specific effect of exercise components.

Exercise for hand osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no cure for OA is known, and non-pharmacological modalities are recommended as first-line care. A positive effect of exercise in hip and knee OA has been documented, but the effect of exercise on hand OA remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand OA. Main outcomes are hand pain and hand function. SEARCH METHODS: We searched six electronic databases up until September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise or comparing different exercise programmes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes consisted of both continuous (hand pain, physical function, finger joint stiffness and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportions of adverse events and withdrawals). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies in the review. Most studies were free from selection and reporting bias, but one study was available only as a congress abstract. It was not possible to blind participants to treatment allocation, and although most studies reported blinded outcome assessors, some outcomes (pain, function, stiffness and quality of life) were self-reported. The results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias owing to unblinded participants and self-reported outcomes. Two studies with high drop-out rates may be vulnerable to attrition bias. We downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to low owing to potential detection bias (lack of blinding of participants on self-reported outcomes) and imprecision (studies were few, the number of participants was limited and confidence intervals were wide for the outcomes pain, function and joint stiffness). For quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, we further downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to very low because studies were very few and confidence intervals were very wide.Low-quality evidence from five trials (381 participants) indicated that exercise reduced hand pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.07) post intervention. The absolute reduction in pain for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 5% (1% to 9%) on a 0 to 10 point scale. Pain was estimated to be 3.9 points on this scale (0 = no pain) in the control group, and exercise reduced pain by 0.5 points (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise improved hand function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02) post intervention. The absolute improvement in function noted in the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 6% (0.4% worsening to 13% improvement). Function was estimated at 14.5 points on a 0 to 36 point scale (0 = no physical disability) in the control group, and exercise improved function by 2.2 points (95% CI -0.2 to 4.6; NNTB 9).One study (113 participants) evaluated quality of life, and the effect of exercise on quality of life is currently uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.32). The absolute improvement in quality of life for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 0.3% (4% worsening to 4% improvement). Quality of life was 50.4 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (100 = maximum quality of life) in the control group, and the mean score in the exercise group was 0.3 points higher (3.5 points lower to 4.1 points higher).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise reduced finger joint stiffness (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) post intervention. The absolute reduction in finger joint stiffness for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 7% (3% to 10%). Finger joint stiffness was estimated at 4.5 points on a 0 to 10 point scale (0 = no stiffness) in the control group, and exercise improved stiffness by 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; NNTB 7).Three studies reported intervention-related adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The few reported adverse events consisted of increased finger joint inflammation and hand pain. Low-quality evidence from the three studies showed an increased likelihood of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 4.55, 95% CI 0.53 to 39.31) and of withdrawals due to adverse events in the exercise group compared with the control group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 27.18), but the effect is uncertain and further research may change the estimates.Included studies did not measure radiographic joint structure changes. Two studies provided six-month follow-up data (220 participants), and one (102 participants) provided 12-month follow-up data. The positive effect of exercise on pain, function and joint stiffness was not sustained at medium- and long-term follow-up.The exercise intervention varied largely in terms of dosage, content and number of supervised sessions. Participants were instructed to exercise two to three times a week in four studies, daily in two studies and three to four times daily in another study. Exercise interventions in all seven studies aimed to improve muscle strength and joint stability or function, but the numbers and types of exercises varied largely across studies. Four studies reported adherence to the exercise programme; in three studies, this was self-reported. Self-reported adherence to the recommended frequency of exercise sessions ranged between 78% and 94%. In the fourth study, 67% fulfilled at least 16 of the 18 scheduled exercise sessions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When we pooled results from five studies, we found low-quality evidence showing small beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function and finger joint stiffness. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated. One study reported quality of life, and the effect is uncertain. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and were not severe.

Distribution of osteoarthritis in a Norwegian population-based cohort: associations to risk factor profiles and health-related quality of life.

The objective of the study was to examine the hand-, knee- and hip osteoarthritis (OA) distribution, risk factor profiles and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a population-based OA cohort. Persons with self-reported OA responded to questionnaires and attended a clinical examination (N = 606). We analyzed cross-sectional associations to risk factor profiles and HRQoL dimensions (Short Form 36) in four mutually exclusive groups based on fulfillment of The American College of Rheumatology criteria: no OA (NOA), monoarticular upper extremity (hand) OA (MOAupper-ex.), monoarticular lower extremity (hip or knee) OA (MOAlower-ex.) and polyarticular OA (POA). Multivariate regression analyses and correspondence analysis were performed. The distribution of NOA, MOAupper-ex. MOAlower-ex. and POA was 21.1, 25.4, 22.4 and 31.0%, respectively. Compared to NOA, minor differences were found in risk factor profile in MOAupper-ex., whereas POA was significantly associated with sociodemographic, metabolic and mechanical features. The correspondence analysis identified different risk factor profiles between the four OA phenotypes, but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.13). Regarding HRQoL, neither OA groups were associated with poorer mental functioning. MOAlower-ex. and POA were associated with, among other things, poorer physical functioning (ß = -6.2, 95% CI -11.2 to -1.2 and ß = -12.5, 95% CI -17.4 to -7.9, respectively) and more pain (ß = -5.4, 95% CI -10.4 to -0.3 and ß = -10.5, 95% CI -15.3 to -5.8, respectively). In this cohort of persons with self-reported OA, POA was the most prevalent phenotype and was associated with an unfortunate risk factor profile and several diminished HRQoL dimensions. POA needs further attention in research and clinical care.

Quality of hip and knee osteoarthritis management in primary health care in a Norwegian county: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Several studies have documented discordance between general practioners (GP) practice and management recommendations, but there is limited published information about patient reported experience of quality of care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the patient perceived quality of OA management in primary health care. Secondly, we wanted to explore the factors associated with the perceived quality of OA care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in six general practices in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in Norway, patients with radiologically diagnosed OA, according to ICPC codes L89, L90 or L91 or clinical signs and symptoms corresponding to OA in the hip or knee and patient-reported quality of OA care on the 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (OA-QI). OA-QI summary pass rates were calculated, in which the numerator represents the number with indicators passed and the denominator represents the total number of eligible persons. Associations with summary pass rates were explored with demographic, disease related and health care related factors as independent variables. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included (response rate 42%). The median summary QI pass rate for all 17 QIs was 47% (Inter Quartile Range 33-65%), but there were large variation between the different items. The referral for weight reduction had the lowest pass rate (8%), whereas the highest pass rate was having received information about the importance of physical activity and exercise (84%). The median summary QI pass rates for both non-pharmacological- (QIs 1-11) and pharmacological (QIs 13-16) treatments were 50% (IQR 25-75). In bivariate regression analyses, only overall treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with QI pass rate (p = 0.001), with unstandardized beta = 6.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 9.5), i.e. a one-point increase on the five-point satisfaction scale was associated with a 6% increase in pass rate. CONCLUSION: Considering that the median summary QI pass rate was 47%, there might be room for improvement in OA care. Advice and the referral of OA patients in need of weight reduction seem to have the greatest potential for improvement.

The validity of self-reported body mass index in a population-based osteoarthritis study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-known risk factor for osteoarthritis (OA). The majority of obesity research in OA is performed using self-reported BMI-data, however, its validity in persons with OA is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the validity of self-reported body mass index (BMI) in persons with and without clinical osteoarthritis (OA) in a population-based survey. METHODS: Height and weight were self-reported, and thereafter measured in 600 persons with and without clinical OA according to the American College of Rheumatology-criteria (knees, hips and/or hands). We compared the differences between measured and self-reported heights, weights and BMIs (kg/m2) for the two groups and explored whether demographic/clinical factors were associated with inaccurate reporting in the OA patients using multivariate linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 64 (8.7) years and 412 (69%) were women. Participants with clinical OA (n = 449) underreported their BMI to a greater extent than participants without clinical OA (n = 151) [mean (SD) difference 1.34 (1.68) kg/m2 and 0.78 (1.40) kg/m2 (p = 0.000), respectively]. There was a strong dose-dependent association between higher measured BMI and greater underreporting of BMI in multivariate analyses (BMI 25-29.99 kg/m2: B = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.06, 0.77), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2: B = 1.30, 95% CI, 0.86, 1.75) in the clinical OA patients. A higher age as well as the time interval from self-reported to measured BMI-data were associated with inaccurate reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers using self-reported height and weight data should be aware of limited agreement with actual height and weight in overweight and obese individuals with clinical OA.

Exercise programme with telephone follow-up for people with hand osteoarthritis - protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal diseases in an adult population and may have a large influence on an individual's functioning, health-related quality of life and participation in society. Several studies have demonstrated that exercises may reduce pain and improve functioning in people with knee OA, with a similar effect suggested for hip OA. For hand OA, available research is very limited and shows conflicting results, and high-quality randomised controlled trials are warranted.This paper outlines the protocol for a randomised controlled trial that aims to determine the effect of an exercise intervention on self-reported hand activity performance in people with hand OA. METHODS: Participants with physician-confirmed hand OA according to the ACR clinical criteria are being recruited from two Norwegian OA cohorts: the population-based "Musculoskeletal pain in Ullensaker Study" (MUST) OA cohort, and the hospital-based Oslo Hand OA cohort. Participants are randomised into an intervention- or control group. The control group receives "usual care", whereas the intervention group receives a 12-week exercise intervention. The intervention group attends four group sessions and is instructed to perform the exercise program three times a week at home. Adherence will be captured using self-report. During the eight weeks with no group sessions, the intervention group receives a weekly telephone call. The assessments and group sessions are being conducted locally in Ullensaker Municipality and at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo. Outcomes are collected at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure is self-reported hand activity performance at 3 months post-randomisation, as measured by the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA); and a patient-generated measure of disability, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcome measures are self-reported OA symptoms (e.g. pain, stiffness and fatigue), the Patient Global Assessment of disease activity, measured hand function (e.g. grip strength, thumb web space and hand dexterity) and health-related quality of life. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the knowledge on both the effect and resource use of an exercise programme with telephone follow-up on self-reported hand activity performance among people with hand OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number: NCT01245842.

Usage, Attitudes, Facilitators, and Barriers Toward Digital Health Technologies in Musculoskeletal Care: Survey Among Primary Care Physiotherapists in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Work burden increases for physiotherapists in the primary health care sector as the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) increases. Digital health technologies (DHTs) are proposed as a viable solution to secure the sustainability of the health care system and have shown promising results in a range of conditions. However, little is known about use of DHTs among physiotherapists in the primary health care sector in Norway. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the use of and attitudes toward DHTs among physiotherapists treating patients with MSDs in primary care, and potential facilitators or barriers for adopting DHTs in clinical practice. METHODS: An author-developed web-based questionnaire was distributed to physiotherapists in all Norwegian municipalities in March 2023. The questionnaire included items regarding use of technologies, attitudes, suitability, and factors influencing adoption of DHT. Suitability and agreement on statements were scored on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0=very unsuitable or strongly disagree, 10=very suitable or strongly agree). Differences across employment sites and users versus nonusers of DHT were analyzed using the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Approximately 5000 physiotherapists were invited to participate, of which 6.8% (338) completed the questionnaire. A total of 46.2% (156/338) offered DHTs in their practice, of which 53.2% (83/156) used it on a weekly basis, mostly telephone consultations (105/156, 67.3%). A higher proportion of physiotherapists in private practice offered DHT compared with those employed by municipalities (95/170, 55.9% vs 61/168, 36.3%; P<.001). A majority (272/335, 81.2%) were positive about recommending DHTs to their patients. Suitability of DHTs in physiotherapy was rated an average of 6 (SD 2.1). Apps for smartphones or tablets were rated most suitable (mean rating 6.8, SD 2.4). The most frequently reported advantages were flexibility in how physiotherapy is offered (278/338, 82.3%) and reduced travel time for the patient (235/338, 70%). The highest rated disadvantages were limited scope for physical examination (252/338, 74.6%) and difficulty in building rapport with the patient (227/338, 67.2%). The main facilitators and barriers included a functioning (median rating 10, IQR 8-10) or lack of functioning (median rating 9, IQR 8-10) internet connection, respectively. Lack of training in DHTs was prominent regarding evaluation, diagnosing, and treatment (median rating 0, IQR 0-2), with minor, but significant, differences between nonusers and users (median rating 0, IQR 0-1 vs median rating 1, IQR 0-4); P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapists in Norwegian primary care treating patients with MSDs are positive about using DHTs, and almost 50% (156/338) have adopted them in clinical practice. Concerns are related to lack of a physical examination and technical aspects. Training in the use of DHTs should be addressed in implementation processes.