What Are the Underlying Mental Health Constructs Associated With Level of Capability in People With Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND: Mental health characteristics such as negative mood, fear avoidance, unhelpful thoughts regarding pain, and low self-efficacy are associated with symptom intensity and capability among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge gaps remain regarding the conceptual and statistical overlap of these constructs and which of these are most strongly associated with capability in people with OA. Further study of these underlying factors can inform us which mental health assessments to prioritize and how to incorporate them into whole-person, psychologically informed care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the distinct underlying factors that can be identified using statistical grouping of responses to a multidimensional mental health survey administered to patients with OA? (2) What are the associations between these distinct underlying factors and capability in knee OA (measured using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement [KOOS JR]) and hip OA (measured using Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement [HOOS JR]), accounting for sociodemographic and clinical factors? METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of adult patients who were referred to our program with a primary complaint of hip or knee pain secondary to OA between October 2017 and December 2020. Of the 2006 patients in the database, 38% (760) were excluded because they did not have a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis, and 23% (292 of 1246) were excluded owing to missing data, leaving 954 patients available for analysis. Seventy-three percent (697) were women, with a mean age of 61 ± 10 years; 65% (623) of patients were White, and 52% (498) were insured under a commercial plan or via their employer. We analyzed demographic data, patient-reported outcome measures, and a multidimensional mental health survey (the 10-item Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome-Yellow Flag [OSPRO-YF] assessment tool), which are routinely collected for all patients at their baseline new-patient visit. To answer our first question about identifying underlying mental health factors, we performed an exploratory factor analysis of the OSPRO-YF score estimates. This technique helped identify statistically distinct underlying factors for the entire cohort based on extracting the maximum common variance among the variables of the OSPRO-YF. The exploratory factor analysis established how strongly different mental health characteristics were intercorrelated. A scree plot technique was then applied to reduce these factor groupings (based on Eigenvalues above 1.0) into a set of distinct factors. Predicted factor scores of these latent variables were generated and were subsequently used as explanatory variables in the multivariable analysis that identified variables associated with HOOS JR and KOOS JR scores. RESULTS: Two underlying mental health factors were identified using exploratory factor analysis and the scree plot; we labeled them "pain coping" and "mood." For patients with knee OA, after accounting for confounders, worse mood and worse pain coping were associated with greater levels of incapability (KOOS JR) in separate models but when analyzed in a combined model, pain coping (regression coefficient -4.3 [95% confidence interval -5.4 to -3.2], partial R 2 0.076; p < 0.001) had the strongest relationship, and mood was no longer associated. Similarly, for hip OA, pain coping (regression coefficient -5.4 [95% CI -7.8 to -3.1], partial R 2 0.10; p < 0.001) had the strongest relationship, and mood was no longer associated. CONCLUSION: This study simplifies the multitude of mental health assessments into two underlying factors: cognition (pain coping) and feelings (mood). When considered together, the association between capability and pain coping was dominant, signaling the importance of a mental health assessment in orthopaedic care to go beyond focusing on unhelpful feelings and mood (assessment of depression and anxiety) alone to include measures of pain coping, such as the Pain Catastrophizing Scale or Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, both of which have been used extensively in patients with musculoskeletal conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

What General and Pain-associated Psychological Distress Phenotypes Exist Among Patients with Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress can negatively influence disability, quality of life, and treatment outcomes for individuals with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Clinical practice guidelines recommend a comprehensive disease management approach to OA that includes the identification, evaluation, and management of psychological distress. However, uncertainty around the best psychological screening and assessment methods, a poor understanding of the heterogeneity of psychological distress in those with OA, and lack of guidance on how to scale treatment have limited the growth of OA care models that effectively address individual psychological needs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Across which general and pain-related psychological distress constructs do individuals seeking conservative care for hip or knee OA report higher scores than the general population of individuals seeking conservative care for musculoskeletal pain conditions? (2) What common psychological phenotypes exist among nonsurgical care-seeking individuals with hip or knee OA? METHODS: The sample included participants from the Duke Joint Health Program (n = 1239), a comprehensive hip and knee OA care program, and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) cohort studies (n = 871) comprising individuals seeking conservative care for knee, shoulder, low back, or neck pain. At the initial evaluation, patients completed the OSPRO Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Assessment Tool, which assesses 11 general and pain-related psychological distress constructs (depression, anxiety, fear of movement, self-efficacy for managing one's own pain). We used OSPRO-YF scores to compare levels of psychological distress between the cohorts. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to determine the magnitude of differences between the groups, with d = 0.20, d = 0.50, and d = 0.80 indicating small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. We used a latent class analysis to derive psychological distress phenotypes in people with OA based on the 11 OSPRO-YF psychological distress indicators. Psychological distress phenotypes are characterized by specific mood, belief, and behavioral factors that differentiate subgroups within a population. Phenotyping can help providers develop scalable treatment pathways that are better tailored to the common needs of patients. RESULTS: Patients with OA demonstrated higher levels of general and pain-related psychological distress across all psychological constructs except for trait anxiety (that is, anxiety level as a personal characteristic rather than as a response to a stressful situation, like surgery) with small-to-moderate effect sizes. Characteristics with the largest effect sizes in the OA and overall OSPRO cohort were (Cohen's d) general anxiety (-0.66, lower in the OA cohort), pain catastrophizing (the tendency to ruminate over, maginfiy, or feel helpless about a pain experience, 0.47), kinesiophobia (pain-related fear of movement, 0.46), pain self-efficacy (confidence in one's own ability to manage his or her pain, -0.46, lower in the OA cohort), and self-efficacy for rehabilitation (confidence in one's own ability to perform their rehabilitation treatments, -0.44, lower in the OA cohort). The latent class analysis yielded four phenotypes (% sample): high distress (52%, 647 of 1239), low distress (26%, 322 of 1239), low self-efficacy and acceptance (low confidence in managing and willingness to accept pain) (15%, 186 of 1239), and negative pain coping (exhibiting poor pain coping skills) (7%, 84 of 1239). The classification error rate was near zero (2%), and the median of posterior probabilities used to assign subgroup membership was 0.99 (interquartile range 0.98 to 1.00), both indicating excellent model performance. The high-distress group had the lowest mean age (61 ± 11 years) and highest levels of pain intensity (6 ± 2) and disability (HOOS JR: 50 ± 15; KOOS JR: 47 ± 15), whereas the low-distress group had the highest mean age (63 ± 10 years) and lowest levels of pain (4 ± 2) and disability (HOOS JR: 63 ± 15; KOOS JR: 60 ± 12). However, none of these differences met or exceeded anchor-based minimal clinically important difference thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: General and pain-related psychological distress are common among individuals seeking comprehensive care for hip or knee OA. Predominant existing OA care models that focus on biomedical interventions, such as corticosteroid injection or joint replacement that are designed to directly address underlying joint pathology and inflammation, may be inadequate to fully meet the care-related needs of many patients with OA due to their underlying psychological distress. We believe this because biomedical interventions do not often address psychological characteristics, which are known to influence OA-related pain and disability independent of joint pathology. Healthcare providers can develop new comprehensive hip and knee OA treatment pathways tailored to these phenotypes where services such as pain coping skills training, relaxation training, and psychological therapies are delivered to patients who exhibit phenotypes characterized by high distress or negative pain coping. Future studies should evaluate whether tailoring treatment to specific psychological phenotypes yields better clinical outcomes than nontailored treatments, or treatments that have a more biomedical focus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Development of a Comprehensive, Nonsurgical Joint Health Program for People With Osteoarthritis: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Existing osteoarthritis (OA) care models often fall short in addressing the many biological, psychological, social, and behavioral characteristics that contribute to disability. As US health care shifts towards value-based payment, there is an increasing need to develop and test scalable, cost-effective, and multi-modal OA care models. This administrative case report will describe the development and pilot of a new, value-based comprehensive care model for OA. CASE DESCRIPTION: The Joint Health Program (JHP) is a physical therapist-led conservative care model for individuals with hip and knee OA. In the JHP, physical therapists with specialized training in cognitive behavioral-theory based strategy function as the central care provider (ie, the primary osteoarthritis provider) who delivers evidence-based, psychologically informed interventions and coordinates care within a multi-disciplinary network of dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and orthopedic providers. The JHP is focused on enhancing patient engagement, shared decision making, self-management and multi-modal patient interaction, and long-term follow-up. OUTCOMES: A value-based, comprehensive care program for OA led by physical therapists demonstrated feasibility and acceptability within a large, academic health care system, which has led to its early growth. Barriers to development and integration of the program were addressed through effective collaboration among health care providers, program and health system administrators, and executive leadership. DISCUSSION: The JHP serves as a model for future physical therapist-led, value-based care models that could be developed in other health care systems for OA and other chronic conditions. Future work will identify characteristics that predict program response and compare the effectiveness of this program to existing models of care.