Participation in healthcare consultations: A qualitative study from the perspectives of persons diagnosed with hand osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Scarce health resources and differing views between persons with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and health professionals concerning care preferences contribute to sustaining a gap between actual needs and existing clinical guidelines for hand OA. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of persons diagnosed with hand OA in their encounters with health services and how those experiences influence negotiations and decision-making in hand OA care. METHODS: Data from 21 qualitative interviews with persons diagnosed with hand OA were collected, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes were developed: symptoms are perceived as ordinary ageing in everyday life, consultations are shaped by trust in healthcare and the responsibilities of prioritisation and self-care govern interactions. CONCLUSION: Ideas of ageing, professional knowledge and self-management dominate hand OA health encounters and contribute to shaping illness perceptions, preferences and opportunities to negotiate decisions in consultations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient research partners with hand OA are members of the study project group. One of them is also a co-author of this manuscript.

Task shifting in the care for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Protocol for a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Current health policy states that patients with osteoarthritis (OA) should mainly be managed in primary health care. Still, research shows that patients with hand OA have poor access to recommended treatment in primary care, and in Norway, they are increasingly referred to rheumatologist consultations in specialist care. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we will test if a new model, where patients referred to consultation in specialist health care receive their first consultation by an occupational therapy (OT) specialist, is as safe and effective as the traditional model, where they receive their first consultation by a rheumatologist. More specifically, we will answer the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of patients with hand OA referred to specialist health care with regards to joint affection, disease activity, symptoms and function? 2. Is OT-led hand OA care as effective and safe as rheumatologist-led care with respect to treatment response, disease activity, symptoms, function and patient satisfaction? 3. Is OT-led hand OA care equal to, or more cost effective than rheumatologist-led care? 4. Which factors, regardless of hand OA care, predict improvement 6 and 12 months after baseline? METHODS: Participants will be patients with hand OA diagnosed by a general practitioner and referred for consultation at one of two Norwegian departments of rheumatology. Those who agree will attend a clinical assessment and report their symptoms and function in validated outcome measures, before they are randomly selected to receive their first consultation by an OT specialist (n = 200) or by a rheumatologist (n = 200). OTs may refer patients to a rheumatologist consultation and vice versa. The primary outcome will be the number of patients classified as OMERACT/OARSI-responders after six months. Secondary outcomes are pain, function and satisfaction with care over the twelve-month trial period. The analysis of the primary outcome will be done by logistic regression. A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response probability will be formed, and non-inferiority of OT-led care will be claimed if the upper endpoint of this interval does not exceed 15%. DISCUSSION: The findings will improve access to evidence-based management of people with hand OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102788. Registered April 6th, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03102788?term=Kjeken&draw=2&rank=1 Date and version identifier: December 17th, 2020. First version.

Effect of home-based hand exercises in women with hand osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand exercises are recommended for patients with hand osteoarthritis (HOA), though evidence for their effect is conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in a randomised controlled trial, the effect of HOA information plus home-based hand exercises (exercise group) compared with information only (control group) in women with HOA. METHODS: Interventions were delivered by two occupational therapists. Exercise group participants received eight follow-up calls over the 3-month study and recorded adherence, pain after exercises and adverse events in a diary. Primary outcome was activity performance measured after 3 months by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), with a range of 0-10. Secondary outcomes were measurements of hand function, disease activity, symptoms and number of responders to treatment according to the OMERACT-OARSI criteria. RESULTS: Of 80 women randomised (40 : 40) (mean age (SD) 60.8 years (7.0)), follow-up was 89% (n=71). An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The adjusted mean difference for the exercise versus control group was 1.4 points (95% CI 0.6 to 2.2, effect size 1.0) for the PSFS score. Thirteen patients in the exercise group versus three participants in the control group reached a positive minimal clinical important difference of 2.2 points in the PSFS total score, while none versus two, respectively, had a negative change (p=0.007). For secondary outcomes, significant mean differences were found in grip strength and thumb web space, in fatigue, joint pain and the Functional Index for HOA activity performance scores. Sixteen exercise-group participants fulfilled the OMERACT-OARSI response criteria versus two control-group participants (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hand exercises were well tolerated and significantly improved activity performance, grip strength, pain and fatigue in women with HOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRTCN79019063.

At a 10-Year Follow-up, Tendon Repair Is Superior to Physiotherapy in the Treatment of Small and Medium-Sized Rotator Cuff Tears.

BACKGROUND: Tendon repair and physiotherapy are frequently used treatment methods for small and medium-sized rotator cuff tears. In 2 previous publications of the 1 and 5-year results of this study, we reported significant but small between-group differences in favor of tendon repair. Long-term results are needed to assess whether the results in both groups remain stable over time. METHODS: In this study, 103 patients with a rotator cuff tear not exceeding 3 cm were randomly assigned to primary tendon repair or physiotherapy with optional secondary repair. Blinded follow-up was performed after 6 months and 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. Outcome measures included the Constant score; the self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; the measurement of shoulder pain, motion, and strength; and patient satisfaction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on surgically treated shoulders after 1 year, and ultrasound was performed on all shoulders after 5 and 10 years. The main analysis was by 1-way analysis of covariance and by intention to treat. RESULTS: Ninety-one of 103 patients attended the last follow-up. After 10 years, the results were better for primary tendon repair, by 9.6 points on the Constant score (p = 0.002), 15.7 points on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (p < 0.001), 1.8 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain (p < 0.001), 19.6° for pain-free abduction (p = 0.007), and 14.3° for pain-free flexion (p = 0.01). Fourteen patients had crossed over from physiotherapy to secondary surgery and had an outcome on the Constant score that was 10.0 points inferior compared with that of the primary tendon repair group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, the differences in outcome between primary tendon repair and physiotherapy for small and medium-sized rotator cuff tears had increased, with better results for primary tendon repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Tendon repair compared with physiotherapy in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled study in 103 cases with a five-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is limited Level-I evidence that compares operative and nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears. We compared outcomes of patients treated with primary tendon repair with outcomes of those treated with physiotherapy and optional secondary tendon repair if needed. METHODS: A single-center, pragmatic, randomized controlled study with follow-ups after six months and one, two, and five years was conducted in a secondary-care institution. One hundred and three patients with a rotator cuff tear not exceeding 3 cm were randomized to primary tendon repair (n = 52) or physiotherapy (n = 51). The primary outcome measure was the Constant score. Secondary outcome measures included the self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; the physical component summary measure of the Short Form 36 Health Survey; the measurement of pain, strength, and shoulder motion; patient satisfaction; and findings from magnetic resonance imaging and sonography. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The five-year follow-up rate was 98%. Twelve of the fifty-one patients in the physiotherapy group were treated with secondary tendon repair. The results from primary tendon repair were superior to those from physiotherapy plus secondary repair, with between-group mean differences of 5.3 points on the Constant score (p = 0.05), 9.0 points on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (p < 0.001), 1.1 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain (p < 0.001), and 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale for patient satisfaction (p = 0.03). In 37% of tears treated with physiotherapy only, there were increasing tear sizes on ultrasound of >5 mm, over five years, associated with an inferior outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although primary repair of small and medium-sized rotator cuff tears was associated with better outcome than physiotherapy treatment, the differences were small and may be below clinical importance. In the physiotherapy treatment group, there were increasing tear sizes and inferior outcomes in one-third of patients who did not undergo repair.