Using SUpported Motivational InTerviewing (SUMIT) to increase physical activity for people with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot, feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of using SUpported Motivational InTerviewing (SUMIT) to increase physical activity in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: We recruited people who had completed Good Life with osteoArthritis Denmark (GLA:D) from private, public and community settings in Victoria, Australia. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised participants to receive SUMIT or usual care. SUMIT comprised five motivational interviewing sessions targeting physical activity over 10 weeks, and access to a multimedia web-based platform. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two participants were recruited (17 SUMIT, 15 control) including 22 females (69%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes included recruitment rate, adherence to motivational interviewing, ActivPAL wear and drop-out rate. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for daily steps, stepping time, time with cadence >100 steps per minute, time in bouts >1 min; 6 min walk distance, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (pain, symptoms, function, sport and recreation, and quality of life (QoL)), Euroqual, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, waist circumference, 30 s chair stand test and walking speed during 40 m walk test. RESULTS: All feasibility criteria were achieved, with 32/63 eligible participants recruited over seven months; with all participants adhering to all motivational interviewing calls and achieving sufficient ActivPAL wear time, and only two drop-outs (6%).12/15 outcome measures showed at least a small effect (ES>0.2) favouring the SUMIT group, including daily time with cadence >100 steps per minute (ES=0.43). Two outcomes, walking speed (ES= 0.97) and KOOS QoL (ES=0.81), showed a large effect (ES>0.8). CONCLUSION: SUMIT is feasible in people with knee osteoarthritis. Potential benefits included more time spent walking at moderate intensity, faster walking speeds and better QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000267853.

Recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Guideline adherence for hip and knee osteoarthritis management is often poor, possibly related to the quality and/or inconsistent recommendations. This systematic review of hip and knee osteoarthritis guidelines aimed to appraise the quality and consistency in recommendations across higher-quality guidelines. METHODS: Eight databases, guideline repositories, and professional associations websites were searched on 27/10/2022. Guideline quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II tool) (six domains). Higher quality was defined as scoring ≥60% for domains 3 (rigour of development), 6 (editorial independence), plus one other. Consistency in recommendations across higher-quality guidelines was reported descriptively. This review was registered prospectively (CRD42021216154). RESULTS: Seven higher-quality and 18 lesser-quality guidelines were included. AGREE II domain scores for higher-quality guidelines were > 60% except for applicability (average 46%). Higher-quality guidelines consistently recommended in favour of education, exercise, and weight management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (hip and knee), and intra-articular corticosteroid injections (knee). Higher quality guidelines consistently recommended against hyaluronic acid (hip) and stem cell (hip and knee) injections. Other pharmacological recommendations in higher-quality guidelines (e.g., paracetamol, intra-articular corticosteroid (hip), hyaluronic acid (knee)) and adjunctive treatments (e.g., acupuncture) were less consistent. Arthroscopy was consistently recommended against in higher-quality guidelines. No higher-quality guidelines considered arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Higher-quality guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis consistently recommend clinicians implement exercise, education, and weight management, alongside consideration of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and intra-articular corticosteroid injections (knee). Lack of consensus on some pharmacological options and adjunctive treatments creates challenges for guideline adherence. Future guidelines must prioritise providing implementation guidance, considering consistently low applicability scores.

Osteoarthritis management care pathways are complex and inefficient: A qualitative study of physiotherapist perspectives from specialised osteoarthritis services.

OBJECTIVE: Hip and knee osteoarthritis guidelines internationally provide consistent first-line care recommendations. However, uptake of these recommendations remains suboptimal. This qualitative study explores factors influencing guideline-based care from the perspectives of physiotherapists working in specialised osteoarthritis services across different models of care. METHODS: Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists working in specialist osteoarthritis services across three different Australian models of care (OsteoArthritis Hip and Knee Service n = 10; OsteoArthritis Chronic Care Programme n = 4; Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinics and Multidisciplinary Services n = 5). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The overarching theme to emerge was that accessing first-line osteoarthritis care is complex and difficult, regardless of model of care. Subthemes indicated that: (i) services are either unavailable or inadequately funded, (ii) referral pathways are labyrinthine and lengthy, (iii) patients and other health professionals often believe that surgery is the only/best option and (iv) managing patient co-morbidities is challenging. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapists working in specialised osteoarthritis services perceive multiple and complex factors influencing adherence to first-line care. Barriers occur at various levels in all models of care, including patient and health professional beliefs, health service, and system levels. These results suggest improving healthcare for people with osteoarthritis requires urgent system reform.

Osteoarthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) in a community health setting compared to the hospital setting: A feasibility study for a new care pathway.

AIM: OsteoArthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) clinics involve assessment and triage by advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapists for patients referred to orthopaedic clinics in public hospitals. This study explored the feasibility of implementing an OAHKS clinic in a community setting. METHODS: The domains of feasibility explored in this mixed methods study were acceptability (patient, general practitioner and orthopaedic surgeon), demand (referrals, waiting times) efficacy potential (management decision, conversion-to-surgery rates) and practicality (number and type of discussions between advanced musculoskeletal physiotherapist and doctors, adverse events). Results from a community-based OAHKS were compared with hospital-based OAHKS over a 9-month period in the same metropolitan health region. RESULTS: A total of 91 eligible patients attended an OAHKS clinic (40 community-based, 51 hospital-based). Both the community-based and hospital-based OAHKS had high patient and general practitioner satisfaction, with small differences in favour of community-based OAHKS. Waiting times were significantly shorter in community-based OAHKS for both initial appointment [community-based OAHKS mean 17 days (SD11), hospital-based OAHKS mean 155 days (SD38)] and commencing non-surgical management [community-based OAHKS mean 32 days (SD22), hospital-based OAHKS mean 67 days (SD32)]. Referral rate to orthopaedics was substantially lower from community-based OAHKS (3%) compared with hospital-based OAHKS (33%) [odds ratio 0.05 (95% CI 0.01-0.41)]. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: Community-based OAHKS is feasible, and acceptable to patients and general practitioners, with potential benefits indicated in this study including shorter waiting times for assessment and commencing non-surgical management programs.