Psychosocial Factors in Knee Osteoarthritis: Scoping Review of Evidence and Future Opportunities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability. Clinical practice guidelines recommend education on OA management, exercise, and weight control. However, many people with OA do not receive this recommended OA care. Some health care professionals (HCPs) lack the knowledge and skills to deliver recommended OA care. This article presents a framework to guide the development and evaluation of education and training for HCPs in the delivery of evidence-based OA care including: (1) Overarching principles for education and training; (2) Core capabilities for the delivery of best evidence OA care; (3) Theories of learning and preferences for delivery; (4) Evaluation of education and training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Core and adjunctive interventions for osteoarthritis: efficacy and models for implementation.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a complex musculoskeletal disease and a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Hip and knee OA alone are major contributors to global disability, having notable effects on individual well-being, increasing the reliance of individuals on health-care services and contributing to a rise in the socioeconomic burden. Consistent, coordinated and tailored approaches are important for providing appropriate care to all people with OA, but despite the scale of the challenge many individuals are still not offered the safe, best-evidence treatments recommended for OA care. This Review discusses the core priority treatments for OA, including exercise and physical activity, weight-loss, education and support for self-management. Additional physical or psychological evidence-based adjunctive therapies and combined therapies that can be used to tailor individual programmes are also discussed. These options include cognitive behavioural therapy, heat therapy, walking aids and splints, manual therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. International examples of OA treatment options, models of care and resources available are also given. Many challenges still need to be addressed to advance the uptake of these conditions, including further discussion around the risks and costs involved with all treatments.

Community-based online survey on seeking care and information for lower limb pain and injury in Australia: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Musculoskeletal pain is a leading cause of disability globally. In geographically and socioeconomically diverse countries, such as Australia, care seeking when someone experiences musculoskeletal pain is varied and potentially influenced by their individual characteristics, access to practitioners or perceived trustworthiness of information. This study explored how consumers currently access healthcare, how well it is trusted and if sociodemographic factors influenced healthcare utilisation. DESIGN: Anonymous online observational survey. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 831 community-based individuals (18+ years). OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive analyses and generalised estimating equations were used to quantify healthcare-seeking behaviours, sources and trust of health information for (A) first-contact practitioners, (B) medical practitioners, and (C) other sources of information. RESULTS: Of the 761 respondents, 73% were females, 54% resided in capital cities. 68% of respondents had experienced pain or injury in more than one lower limb joint. Despite this, more than 30% of respondents only sought help when there had not been natural resolution of their pain. Physiotherapists had the highest odds of being seen, asked and trusted for healthcare information. The odds of seeking care from general practitioners were no higher than seeking information from an expert website. Older individuals and women exhibited higher odds of seeking, asking and trusting health information. CONCLUSION: Intelligible and trustworthy information must be available for consumers experiencing lower limb pain. Individuals, particularly younger people, are seeking information from multiple, unregulated sources. This suggests that healthcare professionals may need to invest time and resources into improving the trustworthiness and availability of healthcare information to improve healthcare quality.

Protocol for the process and feasibility evaluations of a new model of primary care service delivery for managing pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) using a mixed methods approach.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol outlines the rationale, design and methods for the process and feasibility evaluations of the primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) study. PARTNER is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a new model of service delivery (the PARTNER model) against 'usual care'. PARTNER is designed to encourage greater uptake of key evidence-based non-surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. The intervention supports general practitioners (GPs) to gain an understanding of the best management options available through online professional development. Their patients receive telephone advice and support for OA management by a centralised, multidisciplinary 'Care Support Team'. We will conduct concurrent process and feasibility evaluations to understand the implementation of this new complex health intervention, identify issues for consideration when interpreting the effectiveness outcomes and develop recommendations for future implementation, cost effectiveness and scalability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The UK Medical Research Council Framework for undertaking a process evaluation of complex interventions and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks inform the design of these evaluations. We use a mixed-methods approach including analysis of survey data, administrative records, consultation records and semistructured interviews with GPs and their enrolled patients. The analysis will examine fidelity and dose of the intervention, observations of trial setup and implementation and the quality of the care provided. We will also examine details of 'usual care'. The semistructured interviews will be analysed using thematic and content analysis to draw out themes around implementation and acceptability of the model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The primary and substudy protocols have been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (2016/959 and 2019/503). Our findings will be disseminated to national and international partners and stakeholders, who will also assist with wider dissemination of our results across all levels of healthcare. Specific findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and via training for healthcare professionals delivering OA management programmes. This evaluation is crucial to explaining the PARTNER study results, and will be used to determine the feasibility of rolling-out the intervention in an Australian healthcare context. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001595303; Pre-results.

Priorities for the effective implementation of osteoarthritis management programs: an OARSI international consensus exercise.

OBJECTIVE: The Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an interest in the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify and prioritise activities for future work of the Joint Effort Initiative. DESIGN: A survey was emailed to delegates of the 2018 OARSI World Congress attending a pre-conference workshop or with a known interest in OAMPs (n = 115). Delegates were asked about the most important issues regarding OAMP implementation. The top 20 issues were synthesised into 17 action statements, and respondents were invited to participate in a priority ranking exercise to determine the order of importance of the statements. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 51, 44%) were most commonly female (71%), with an allied health background (57%), affiliated with universities (73%) from Oceania (37%), and Europe/UK (45%). The five highest ranked action statements were: CONCLUSION: Prioritising statements will bring focus to the future work of the Joint Effort Initiative in the future and provide a basis for longer-term actions.

Effectiveness of a new model of primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for THE PARTNER STUDY.

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of key clinical recommendations for non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and improve patient outcomes, we developed a new model of service delivery (PARTNER model) and an intervention to implement the model in the Australian primary care setting. We will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this model compared to usual general practice care. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods study, including a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial, with quantitative, qualitative and economic evaluations. We will recruit 44 general practices and 572 patients with knee OA in urban and regional practices in Victoria and New South Wales. The interventions will target both general practitioners (GPs) and their patients at the practice level. Practices will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited if they are aged ≥45 years and have experienced knee pain ≥4/10 on a numerical rating scale for more than three months. Outcomes are self-reported, patient-level validated measures with the primary outcomes being change in pain and function at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at 6 and 12 months. The implementation intervention will support and provide education to intervention group GPs to deliver effective management for patients with knee OA using tailored online training and electronic medical record support. Participants with knee OA will have an initial GP visit to confirm their diagnosis and receive management according to GP intervention or control group allocation. As part of the intervention group GP management, participants with knee OA will be referred to a centralised multidisciplinary service: the PARTNER Care Support Team (CST). The CST will be trained in behaviour change support and evidence-based knee OA management. They will work with patients to develop a collaborative action plan focussed on key self-management behaviours, and communicate with the patients' GPs. Patients receiving care by intervention group GPs will receive tailored OA educational materials, a leg muscle strengthening program, and access to a weight-loss program as appropriate and agreed. GPs in the control group will receive no additional training and their patients will receive usual care. DISCUSSION: This project aims to address a major evidence-to-practice gap in primary care management of OA by evaluating a new service delivery model implemented with an intervention targeting GP practice behaviours to improve the health of people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617001595303 , date of registration 1/12/2017.