Efficacy of a Community-Based Technology-Enabled Physical Activity Counseling Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Proof-of-Concept Study.

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines emphasize the use of physical activity as the first-line treatment of knee osteoarthritis; however, up to 90% of people with osteoarthritis are inactive. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the efficacy of a technology-enabled counseling intervention for improving physical activity in people with either a physician-confirmed diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis or having passed two validated criteria for early osteoarthritis. METHODS: We conducted a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. The immediate group received a brief education session by a physical therapist, a Fitbit Flex, and four biweekly phone calls for activity counseling. The delayed group received the same intervention 2 months later. Participants were assessed at baseline (T0) and at the end of 2 months (T1), 4 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Outcomes included (1) mean time on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA ≥3 metabolic equivalents [METs], primary outcome), (2) mean time on MVPA ≥4 METs, (3) mean daily steps, (4) mean time on sedentary activities, (5) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and (6) Partners in Health scale. Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used to assess five planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over measurement periods. The five contrasts were (1) immediate T1-T0 vs delayed T1-T0, (2) delayed T2-T1 vs delayed T1-T0, (3) mean of contrast 1 and contrast 2, (4) immediate T1-T0 vs delayed T2-T1, and (5) mean of immediate T2-T1 and delayed T3-T2. The first three contrasts estimate the between-group effects. The latter two contrasts estimate the effect of the 2-month intervention delay on outcomes. RESULTS: We recruited 61 participants (immediate: n=30; delayed: n=31). Both groups were similar in age (immediate: mean 61.3, SD 9.4 years; delayed: mean 62.1, SD 8.5 years) and body mass index (immediate: mean 29.2, SD 5.5 kg/m2; delayed: mean 29.2, SD 4.8 kg/m2). Contrast analyses revealed significant between-group effects in MVPA ≥3 METs (contrast 1 coefficient: 26.6, 95% CI 4.0-49.1, P=.02; contrast 3 coefficient: 26.0, 95% CI 3.1-49.0, P=.03), daily steps (contrast 1 coefficient: 1699.2, 95% CI 349.0-3049.4, P=.02; contrast 2 coefficient: 1601.8, 95% CI 38.7-3164.9, P=.045; contrast 3 coefficient: 1650.5, 95% CI 332.3-2968.7; P=.02), KOOS activity of daily living subscale (contrast 1 coefficient: 6.9, 95% CI 0.1-13.7, P=.047; contrast 3 coefficient: 7.2, 95% CI 0.8-13.6, P=.03), and KOOS quality of life subscale (contrast 1 coefficient: 7.4, 95% CI 0.0-14.7, P=.049; contrast 3 coefficient: 7.3, 95% CI 0.1-14.6, P=.048). We found no significant effect in any outcome measures due to the 2-month delay of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our counseling program improved MVPA ≥3 METs, daily steps, activity of daily living, and quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis. These findings are important because an active lifestyle is an important component of successful self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02315664; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02315664 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ynSgUyUC).

Efficacy of a Physical Activity Counseling Program With Use of a Wearable Tracker in People With Inflammatory Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a multifaceted counseling intervention at improving physical activity participation and patient outcomes. METHODS: We recruited people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In weeks 1-8, the immediate group received education and counseling by a physical therapist, used a Fitbit and a web application to obtain feedback about their physical activity, and received 4 follow-up calls from the physical therapist. The delay group received the same intervention in weeks 10-17. Participants were assessed at baseline and at weeks 9, 18, and 27. The primary outcome was time spent in moderate/vigorous physical activity (MVPA; in bouts of ≥10 minutes) measured with a SenseWear device. Secondary outcomes included step count, time in sedentary behavior, pain, fatigue, mood, self-management capacity, and habitual behaviors. RESULTS: A total of 118 participants enrolled. The adjusted mean difference in MVPA was 9.4 minutes/day (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.5, 19.3, P = 0.06). A significant effect was found in pain (-2.45 [95% CI -4.78, -0.13], P = 0.04), and perceived walking habit (0.54 [95% CI 0.08, 0.99], P = 0.02). The remaining secondary outcomes improved, but were not statistically significant. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant effect in MVPA (14.3 minutes/day [95% CI 2.3, 26.3]) and pain (-4.05 [95% CI -6.73, -1.36]) in participants with RA, but not in those with SLE. CONCLUSION: Counseling by a physical therapist has the potential to improve physical activity in people with inflammatory arthritis, but further study is needed to understand the intervention effect on different diseases. We found a significant improvement in pain, suggesting that the intervention might have a positive effect on symptom management.

A technology-enabled Counselling program versus a delayed treatment control to support physical activity participation in people with inflammatory arthritis: study protocol for the OPAM-IA randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Being physically active is an essential component of successful self-management for people with inflammatory arthritis; however, the vast majority of patients are inactive. This study aims to determine whether a technology-enabled counselling intervention can improve physical activity participation and patient outcomes. METHODS: The Effectiveness of Online Physical Activity Monitoring in Inflammatory Arthritis (OPAM-IA) project is a community-based randomized controlled trial with a delayed control design. We will recruit 130 people with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, who can be physically active without health professional supervision. Randomization will be stratified by diagnosis. In Weeks 1-8, participants in the Immediate Group will: 1) receive education and counselling by a physical therapist (PT), 2) use a Fitbit and a new web-based application, FitViz, to track and obtain feedback about their physical activity, 3) receive 4 biweekly follow-up calls from the PT. Those in the Delayed Group will receive the same program in Week 10. We will interview a sample of participants about their experiences with the intervention. Participants will be assessed at baseline, and Weeks 9, 18 and 27. The primary outcome measure is time spent in moderate/vigorous physical activity in bouts of ≥ 10 min, measured with a portable multi-sensor device in the free-living environment. Secondary outcomes include step count, time in sedentary behaviour, pain, fatigue, mood, self-management capacity, and habitual behaviour. DISCUSSION: A limitation of this study is that participants, who also administer the outcome measures, will not be blinded. Nonetheless, by customizing existing self-monitoring technologies in a patient-centred manner, individuals can be coached to engage in an active lifestyle and monitor their performance. The results will determine if this intervention improves physical activity participation. The qualitative interviews will also provide insight into a paradigm to integrate this program to support self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Date of last update in ClinicalTrials.gov: September 18, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02554474.