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.

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.

Bridging gaps across levels of care in rehabilitation of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: Results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a structured goal-setting and tailored follow-up rehabilitation intervention with existing rehabilitation in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. DESIGN: A pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. SETTING: Eight rehabilitation centers in secondary healthcare, Norway. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 374 adults with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases were included in either the experimental (168) or the control group (206). INTERVENTIONS: A new rehabilitation intervention which comprised structured goal setting, action planning, motivational interviewing, digital self-monitoring of goal progress, and individual follow-up support after discharge according to patients' needs and available resources in primary healthcare (the BRIDGE-intervention), was compared to usual care. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes were collected electronically on admission and discharge from rehabilitation, and after 2, 7, and 12 months. The primary outcome was patients' goal attainment measured by the Patient Specific Functional Scale (0-10, 10 best) at 7 months. Secondary outcome measures included physical function (30-s Sit-To-Stand test), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L-index), and self-assessed health (EQ-VAS). The main statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed models. RESULTS: No significant treatment effects of the BRIDGE-intervention were found for either primary (Patient Specific Functional Scale mean difference 0.1 [95% CI: -0.5, 0.8], p = 0.70), or secondary outcomes 7 months after rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The BRIDGE-intervention was not shown to be more effective than existing rehabilitation for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. There is still a need for more knowledge about factors that can improve the quality, continuity, and long-term health effects of rehabilitation for this patient group.

The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool: forward-backwards translation and cultural adaption to Norwegian.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is recommended for improving health care services, and to evaluate its organisation and impact appropriate, and rigorously evaluated outcome measures are needed. METHODS: Interviews (N = 12) were conducted to assess relevance of the Canadian Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a Norwegian setting were performed. The tool was translated, back translated, and assessed following cognitive interviews (N = 13), according to the COSMIN checklist. Data quality was assessed in a cross-sectional survey of patient advisory board members from different rehabilitation institutions (N = 47). RESULTS: Interviews with patient board representatives confirmed the relevance of the PPEET Organisational questionnaire in a Norwegian setting and contributed five additional items. Translation and back translation of the original PPEET showed no major content differences. Differences in vocabulary and sentence structure were solved by discussion among the translators. Comments from cognitive interviews mainly related to the use of different synonyms, layout, and minor differences in semantic structure. Results of the cross-sectional survey support the data quality and construct validity of PPEET items, including 95 score comparisons where 76 (80%) were as hypothesized. CONCLUSIONS: The PPEET Organisational questionnaire has been thoroughly translated and tested, and the resulting Evalueringsverktøy for Brukermedvirkning (EBNOR) has adequate levels of comprehensibility and content validity. Further testing for measurement properties is recommended, but given these results, the EBNOR should be considered for assessing patient engagement in a Norwegian health care organisational context.

Organisation, influence, and impact of patient advisory boards in rehabilitation institutions-an explorative cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation is highlighted as an important facilitator for patient-centered care. Patient participation organised as patient advisory boards (PABs) is an integral part of health care institutions in Norway. More knowledge is needed on how PAB representatives experience patient engagement (PE) with regard to organisation, influence, and impact. The objective was to describe how PAB representatives experience their tasks, roles, and impact on decision-making processes and service delivery in the setting of rehabilitation institutions. METHODS: PAB representatives recruited from rehabilitation institutions completed the Norwegian version of the generic Public and Patient Engagement evaluation tool (Norwegian abbreviation EBNOR). EBNOR is tested for reliability and validity with good results and comprises 35 items within four main domains, policies and practices, participatory culture, collaboration, and influence and impact that provide responses about PE-levels. The domain items are scored from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" on a five-point scale, in addition to a don't know category. Items in the domain "influence and impact" are scored from "never" to "all of the time" on a four-point scale. Categorical data were summarized using frequencies and percentages, and response categories were collapsed into three PE-levels: barrier, intermediate, and facilitating level. Free-text responses were analysed according to principles of manifest content analysis, summed up, and used to elaborate the results of the scores. RESULTS: Of the 150 contacted PAB representatives, 47 (32%) consented to participate. The results showed that approximately 75% agreed that the organisation as a whole was strengthened as a result of patient participation. Four out of five domains were scored indicating a facilitating level; policies and practices (53%), participatory culture (53%), collaboration and common purpose (37%), and final thoughts (63%). The modal score in the domain influence and impact was in the intermediate PE-level (44%). Of a total of 34 codes from free text analyses, barriers to PE were coded 26 times, and PE facilitators were coded 8 times. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that most PAB representatives are satisfied with how rehabilitation institutions organise their PAB, but they still experience their impact as limited.

Associations between quality of health care and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a rehabilitation cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of provided health care may be an important source of variation in rehabilitation outcomes, increasing the interest in associations between quality indicators (QIs) and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, we examined the associations between the quality of rehabilitation processes and subsequent clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: In this multicentre prospective cohort study, adults with RMDs undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation at eight participating centres reported the quality of rehabilitation after 2 months and outcomes after 2, 7, and 12 months. We measured perceived quality of rehabilitation by 11 process indicators that cover the domains of initial assessments, patient participation and individual goal-setting, and individual follow-up and coordination across levels of health care. The patients responded "yes" or "no" to each indicator. Scores were calculated as pass rates (PRs) from 0 to 100% (best score). Clinical outcomes were goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale), physical function (30 s sit-to-stand test), and health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5D-5L). Associations between patient-reported quality of care and each outcome measure at 7 months was analysed by linear mixed models. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 52 years, 76% female). Primary diagnoses were inflammatory rheumatic disease (64%), fibromyalgia syndrome (18%), unspecific neck, shoulder, or low back pain (8%), connective tissue disease (6%), and osteoarthritis (4%). The overall median PR for the process indicators was 73% (range 11-100%). The PR was lowest (median 40%) for individual follow-up and coordination across levels of care. The mixed model analyses showed that higher PRs for the process indicators were not associated with improved goal attainment or improved physical function or improved health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of rehabilitation processes was not associated with important clinical outcomes. An implication of this is that measuring only the outcome dimension of quality may result in incomplete evaluation and monitoring of the quality of care, and we suggest using information from both the structure, process, and outcome dimensions to draw inferences about the quality, and plan future quality initiatives in the field of complex rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03102814 ).

Comparison of 2 Postoperative Therapy Regimens After Trapeziectomy Due to Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The main aim of the present study was to evaluate whether early mobilization after trapeziectomy in the first carpometacarpal joint is noninferior to a postoperative regimen comprising the use of a rigid orthosis and mobilization after 6 weeks, with regards to patient-reported activity performance and the effect of surgery in patients with first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial, participants were assessed at baseline (before group allocation) and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcomes were activity performance, measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (1-10, where 1 = unable to perform), and the patient-reported effect of surgery on a 6-point scale ranging from "much worse" to "completely recovered." A change of 2.0 points in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was used as a noninferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included hand function (patient-reported in the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand questionnaire), pain on a numeric rating scale, grip and pinch strengths, and joint mobility. We performed both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. RESULTS: Of the 59 participants (88% women) with a mean age of 65 years, 55 (93%) completed all assessments. We found no differences between the groups in primary or secondary outcomes at any time point, except for more decreased pain at rest in the intervention group (n = 28) compared with the control group (n = 27) after 12 months. The per-protocol analyses did not change these results. Fifteen participants experienced 1 or more adverse events during the first 3 months, but the types and frequencies of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative regimen with early mobilization after trapeziectomy is as safe and effective as a postoperative regimen with longer immobilization in patients with first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.

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.

A quality indicator set for rehabilitation services for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases demonstrates adequate responsiveness in a pre-post evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Quality of care is gaining increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and health care planning. Methods for quality assessment and monitoring, such as quality indicators (QIs), are needed to ensure health services in line with norms and recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of a newly developed QI set for rehabiliation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: We used two yes/no questionnaires to measure quality from both the provider and patient perspectives, scored in a range of 0-100% (best score, 100%). We collected QI data from a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial (the BRIDGE trial) that compared traditional rehabilitation with a new BRIDGE program designed to improve quality and continuity in rehabilitation. Assessment of the responsiveness was performed as a pre-post evaluation: Providers at rehabilitation centers in Norway completed the center-reported QIs (n = 19 structure indicators) before (T1) and 6-8 weeks after (T2) adding the BRIDGE intervention. The patient-reported QIs comprised 14 process and outcomes indicators, measuring quality in health services from the patient perspective. Pre-intervention patient-reported data were collected from patients participating in the traditional program (T1), and post-intervention data were collected from patients participating in the BRIDGE program (T2). The patient groups were comparable. We used a construct approach, with a priori hypotheses regarding the expected direction and magnitude of PR changes between T1 and T2. For acceptable responsivess, at least 75% of the hypotheses needed to be confirmed. RESULTS: All eight participating centers and 82% of the patients (293/357) completed the QI questionnaires. Responsiveness was acceptable, with 44 of 53 hypotheses (83%) confirmed for single indicators and 3 of 4 hypotheses (75%) confirmed for the sum scores. CONCLUSION: We found this QI set for rehabilitation to be responsive when applied in rehabilitation services for adults with various RMD conditions. We recommend this QI set as a timely method for establishing quality-of-rehabilitation benchmarks, promoting important progress toward high-quality rehabilitation, and tracking trends over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03102814).

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.

2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis.

Since publication of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for management of hand osteoarthritis (OA) in 2007 new evidence has emerged. The aim was to update these recommendations. EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A systematic literature review was performed, collecting the evidence regarding all non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment options for hand OA published to date. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from an international task force of 19 physicians, healthcare professionals and patients from 10 European countries formulated overarching principles and recommendations. Level of evidence, grade of recommendation and level of agreement were allocated to each statement. Five overarching principles and 10 recommendations were agreed on. The overarching principles cover treatment goals, information provision, individualisation of treatment, shared decision-making and the need to consider multidisciplinary and multimodal (non-pharmacological, pharmacological, surgical) treatment approaches. Recommendations 1-3 cover different non-pharmacological treatment options (education, assistive devices, exercises and orthoses). Recommendations 4-8 describe the role of different pharmacological treatments, including topical treatments (preferred over systemic treatments, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) being first-line choice), oral analgesics (particularly NSAIDs to be considered for symptom relief for a limited duration), chondroitin sulfate (for symptom relief), intra-articular glucocorticoids (generally not recommended, consider for painful interphalangeal OA) and conventional/biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (discouraged). Considerations for surgery are described in recommendation 9. The last recommendation relates to follow-up. The presented EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of hand OA, based on expert opinion and research evidence.

An intergenerational program based on psycho-motor activity promotes well-being and interaction between preschool children and older adults: results of a process and outcome evaluation study in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists for intergenerational interventions to promote health and well-being in older adults and preschool children. We therefore aimed to evaluate the implementation, feasibility and outcome of an intergenerational health promotion program based on psycho-motor activity. METHODS: A multicenter mixed-methods study with preschool children and older adults as equivalent target-groups, and professionals and parents as additional informants was conducted in Austria. The study included a needs assessment, a pilot phase with a formative process evaluation and a subsequent rollout phase to evaluate the outcome and the adapted processes of the intervention program. To analyze the qualitative data, a modified form of the framework method was applied. Quantitative data were collected with a time-sampling method and were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six participants (93 older adults [54 to 96 years old, 83% female], 78 children [2 to 7 years old, 58% female], 13 professionals and 12 parents) from 16 institutions (eight kindergartens and eight geriatric facilities) were included in the study. The qualitative process evaluation revealed several aspects for improvement of the intervention program. Well-being as measured by observing spontaneous intergenerational contacts (p < 0.001) and facial expressions (effect size r = 0.34; p < 0.001) showed a significant increase between the rollout baseline and follow-up assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals in geriatric institutions and kindergartens could facilitate interactions between members of the different generations by offering an intergenerational intervention program based on psycho-motor activities in the future.

A quality indicator set for use in rehabilitation team care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; development and pilot testing.

BACKGROUND: Systems for monitoring effectiveness and quality of rehabilitation services across health care levels are needed. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot test a quality indicator set for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. METHODS: The set was developed according to the Rand/UCLA Appropriateness Method, which integrates evidence review, in-person multidisciplinary expert panel meetings and repeated anonymous ratings for consensus building. The quality indicators were pilot-tested for overall face validity and feasibility in 15 specialist and 14 primary care rehabilitation units. Pass rates (percentages of "yes") of the indicators were recorded in telephone interviews with 29 unit managers (structure indicators), and 164 patients (process and outcome indicators). Time use and participants' numeric rating of face validity (0-10, 10 = high validity) were recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen structure, 12 process and five outcome indicators were developed and piloted. Mean (range) sum pass rates for the structure, process and outcome indicators were 59%(84%), 66%(100%) and 84%(100%), respectively. Mean (range) face validity score for managers/patients was 8.3 (8)/7.9 (9), and mean answering time was 6.0/5.5 min. The final indicator set consists of 19 structure, 11 process and three outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first quality indicator set developed for rehabilitation of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Good overall face validity and a feasible format indicate a set suitable for monitoring quality in rehabilitation. The variation in pass rates between centers indicates a potential for quality improvement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal rehabilitation in Norway.

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.

Development of bimanual performance in young children with cerebral palsy.

AIM: To describe the development of bimanual performance among young children with unilateral or bilateral cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: A population-based sample of 102 children (53 males, 49 females), median age 28.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 16mo) at first assessment and 47 months (IQR 18mo) at last assessment, was assessed half-yearly with the Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA) or the Both Hands Assessment (BoHA) for a total of 329 assessments. Developmental limits and rates were estimated by nonlinear mixed-effects models. Developmental trajectories were compared between levels of manual ability (Mini-Manual Ability Classification System [Mini-MACS] and MACS) and AHA or BoHA performance at 18 months of age (AHA-18/BoHA-18) for both CP subgroups, and additionally between children with bilateral CP with symmetric or asymmetric hand use. RESULTS: For both CP subgroups, children classified in Mini-MACS/MACS level I, and those with high AHA-18 or BoHA-18 reached the highest limits of performance. For children with bilateral CP the developmental change was small, and children with symmetric hand use reached the highest limits. INTERPRETATION: Mini-MACS/MACS levels and AHA-18 or BoHA-18 distinguished between various developmental trajectories both for children with unilateral and bilateral CP. Children with bilateral CP changed their performance to a smaller extent than children with unilateral CP. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Manual Ability Classification System levels and Assisting Hand Assessment/Both Hands Assessment performance at 18 months are important predictors of hand use development in cerebral palsy (CP). Children with bilateral CP improved less than those with unilateral CP. Children with bilateral CP and symmetric hand use reached higher limits than those with asymmetry.

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.

Measure of activity performance of the hand (MAP-Hand) questionnaire: linguistic validation, cultural adaptation and psychometric testing in people with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Developed in the Norway, the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) assesses 18 activities performed using the hands. It was developed for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using patient generated items, which are scored on a 0-3 scale and summarised into a total score range (0 to 54). This study reports the development and psychometric testing of the British English MAP-Hand in a UK population of people with RA. METHODS: Recruitment took place in the National Health Service (NHS) through 17 Rheumatology outpatient clinics. Phase 1 (cross-cultural adaptation) involved: forward translation to British English; synthesis; expert panel review and cognitive debriefing interviews with people with RA. Phase 2 (psychometric testing) involved postal completion of the MAP-Hand, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Upper Limb HAQ (ULHAQ), Short-Form 36 (SF-36v2) and Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand (DASH) to measure internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha); concurrent validity (Spearman's correlations) and Minimal Detectable Difference (MDC95). The MAP-Hand was repeated three-weeks later to assess test-retest reliability (linear weighted kappa and Intra-Class Correlations (ICC (2,1)). Unidimensionality (internal construct validity) was assessed using (i) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (ii) Mokken scaling and (iii) Rasch model. The RUMM2030 software was used, applying the Rasch partial credit model. RESULTS: In Phase 1, 31 participants considered all items relevant. In Phase 2, 340 people completed Test-1 and 273 (80%) completed Test-2 questionnaires. Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.96). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC (2,1) = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94, 0.97)). The MAP-Hand correlated strongly with HAQ20 (rs = .88), ULHAQ (rs = .91), SF-36v2 Physical Functioning (PF) Score (rs = -.80) and DASH (rs = .93), indicating strong concurrent validity. CFA failed to support unidimensionality (Chi-Square 236.0 (df 120; p < 0.001)). However, Mokken scaling suggested a probabilistic ordering. There was differential item functioning (DIF) for gender. Four testlets were formed, resulting in much improved fit and unidimensionality. Following this, testlets were further merged in pairs where opposite bias existed. This resulted in perfect fit to the model. CONCLUSIONS: The British English version of the MAP-Hand has good validity and reliability in people with RA and can be used in both research and clinical practice.

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.

Hand Function in Young Children with Cerebral Palsy: Current Practice and Parent-Reported Benefits.

AIMS: To (1) describe characteristics of current interventions to improve hand function in young children with Cerebral Palsy (CP), and explore factors associated with (2) increased likelihood of hand and ADL training and (3) child benefits of training. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used with parent-reported data and data from the Norwegian CP Follow-up Program (CPOP). A total of 102 children (53% of the cohort of newly recruited children in the CPOP, mean age: 30.3 months, SD: 12.1) were included. Hand function was classified according to the Mini-Manual Ability Classification System (Mini-MACS). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, cross-tables and direct multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: The majority of the children performed training of hand skills and ADL. Parents reported high amounts of training, and training was commonly integrated in everyday activities. Both parents (OR = 5.6, p < .011) and OTs (OR = 6.2, p < .002) reported more hand training for children at Mini-MACS levels II-III compared to level I. Parents reported larger child benefits when training was organized as a combination of training sessions and practice within everyday activities (OR = 7.090, p = .011). CONCLUSIONS: Parents reported that the children's everyday activities were utilized as opportunities for training, hence describing the intensity of therapy merely by counting minutes or number of sessions seems insufficient.