Patient perspectives on improving osteoarthritis management in urban and rural communities.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is no cure for osteoarthritis (OA), there are lifestyle modifications that can mitigate symptoms such as pain, and improve management of the disease. This information is not always translated to community-dwelling seniors. Individuals in rural areas often face additional challenges due to geographic isolation and decreased access to community services. METHODS: We used qualitative research methodology (hermeneutic phenomenology) to better understand the lived experiences of urban and rural community-dwelling seniors diagnosed with OA. We explored their sources of information about OA, how they manage their OA pain, and how OA management could be improved in the community. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit 20 information-rich participants (11 urban, 9 rural) in Ontario, Canada. All participants were aged >65 and diagnosed with OA. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. NVivo 11 Pro qualitative software was used to code transcripts. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed 9 key themes where 8 were common to urban and rural participants, and 1 was unique to rural participants. Most significant among the common themes was the description of the social network as a source of OA information, the trial-and-error approach used for OA management, and the individual contextualization of OA management. Our results suggest that there are several common experiences among urban- and rural-dwelling seniors living with OA, including the desire for support over time, but also a unique experience to rural-dwelling seniors, namely lack of access to local care. CONCLUSION: These findings can be used to improve translation of OA information in both urban and rural communities in Canada, highlighting that common strategies may be effective in different contexts for this disease.

Evaluating the design and reporting of pragmatic trials in osteoarthritis research.

Objectives: Among the challenges in health research is translating interventions from controlled experimental settings to clinical and community settings where chronic disease is managed daily. Pragmatic trials offer a method for testing interventions in real-world settings but are seldom used in OA research. The aim of this study was to evaluate the literature on pragmatic trials in OA research up to August 2016 in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in the design and reporting of these trials. Methods: We used established guidelines to assess the degree to which 61 OA studies complied with pragmatic trial design and reporting. We assessed design according to the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary and reporting according to the pragmatic trials extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. Results: None of the pragmatic trials met all 11 criteria evaluated and most of the trials met between 5 and 8 of the criteria. Criteria most often unmet pertained to practitioner expertise (by requiring specialists) and criteria most often met pertained to primary outcome analysis (by using intention-to-treat analysis). Conclusion: Our results suggest a lack of highly pragmatic trials in OA research. We identify this as a point of opportunity to improve research translation, since optimizing the design and reporting of pragmatic trials can facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions for OA care.