A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

Daily Pain Severity but Not Vertebral Fractures Is Associated With Lower Physical Activity in Postmenopausal Women With Back Pain.

Back pain lifetime incidence is 60%-70%, while 12%-20% of older women have vertebral fractures (VFs), often with back pain. We aimed to provide objective evidence, currently lacking, regarding whether back pain and VFs affect physical activity (PA). We recruited 69 women with recent back pain (age 74.5 ± 5.4 years). Low- (0.5 < g < 1.0), medium- (1.0 ≤ g < 1.5), and high-impact (g ≥ 1.5) PA and walking time were measured (100 Hz for 7 days, hip-worn accelerometer). Linear mixed-effects models assessed associations between self-reported pain and PA, and group differences (VFs from spine radiographs/no-VF) in PA. Higher daily pain was associated with reduced low (ß = -0.12, 95% confidence interval, [-0.22, -0.03], p = .013) and medium-impact PA (ß = -0.11, 95% confidence interval, [-0.21, -0.01], p = .041), but not high-impact PA or walking time (p > .11). VFs were not associated with PA (all p > .2). Higher daily pain levels but not VFs were associated with reduced low- and medium-impact PA, which could increase sarcopenia and falls risk in older women with back pain.

An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE: To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS: Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION: There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.

Automated measurement of size of spinal curve in population-based cohorts: Validation of a method based on total body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans.

BACKGROUND: Scoliosis is spinal curvature that may progress to require surgical stabilisation. Risk factors for progression are little understood due to lack of population-based research, since radiographs cannot be performed on entire populations due to high levels of radiation. To help address this, we have previously developed and validated a method for quantification of spinal curvature from total body dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. The purpose of this study was to automate this quantification of spinal curve size from DXA scans using machine learning techniques. METHODS: To develop the automation of curve size, we utilised manually annotated scans from 7298 participants from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) at age 9 and 5122 at age 15. To validate the automation we assessed (1) agreement between manual vs automation using the Bland-Altman limits of agreement, (2) reliability by calculating the coefficient of variation, and (3) clinical validity by running the automation on 4969 non-annotated scans at age 18 to assess the associations with physical activity, body composition, adipocyte function and backpain compared to previous literature. RESULTS: The mean difference between manual vs automated readings was less than one degree, and 90.4 % of manual vs automated readings fell within 10°. The coefficient of variation was 25.4 %. Clinical validation showed the expected relationships between curve size and physical activity, adipocyte function, height and weight. CONCLUSION: We have developed a reasonably accurate and valid automated method for quantifying spinal curvature from DXA scans for research purposes.

Systematic review of the association between isolated musculoskeletal hypermobility and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) affects 1-3% of the population, but its pathogenesis remains unclear. The coexistence of musculoskeletal hypermobility and scoliosis in many inherited syndromes raises the possibility that isolated musculoskeletal hypermobility may contribute to AIS development or progression. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the evidence for a relationship between isolated musculoskeletal hypermobility and AIS. A meta-analysis was planned, but if not possible, a narrative evidence synthesis was planned. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion. One study was excluded due to insufficient quality. Substantial heterogeneity in study design and methodology negated meta-analysis, so a narrative review was performed. Of the 18 studies included, seven suggested a positive association and eight found no association. Three reported the prevalence of musculoskeletal hypermobility in individuals with AIS. Overall, there was no convincing population-based evidence for an association between musculoskeletal hypermobility and AIS, with only two case-control studies by the same authors presenting compelling evidence for an association. Although populations at extremes of hypermobility had a high prevalence of spinal curvature, these studies were at high risk of confounding. Wide variation in methods of measuring musculoskeletal hypermobility and the challenge of assessing AIS in population-based studies hinder study comparison. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of high-quality evidence examining the association between isolated musculoskeletal hypermobility and AIS. Large-scale prospective studies with adequate adjustment for potential confounding factors could clarify the relationship between musculoskeletal hypermobility and AIS to elucidate its role in the pathogenesis of AIS.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method.

Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure the outcomes are patient-centred and maximise its value and impact. The Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across musculoskeletal disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders was used, involving four stages and two surveys, to: (1) gather research uncertainties, (2) consolidate these, (3) score uncertainties against importance and impact, and (4) analyse scoring for prioritisation. 213 people responded to the first survey and 285 people to the second, representing clinicians, researchers, and people with musculoskeletal disorders. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better treatment targeting, early diagnosis, prevention, and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities.

Strong, steady and straight: UK consensus statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis.

Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care.

The growing burden from osteoporosis and fragility fractures highlights a need to improve osteoporosis management across healthcare systems. Sub-optimal management of osteoporosis is an area suitable for digital health interventions. While fracture liaison services (FLSs) are proven to greatly improve care for people with osteoporosis, such services might benefit from technologies that enhance automation. The term 'Digital Health' covers a variety of different tools including clinical decision support systems, electronic medical record tools, patient decision aids, patient apps, education tools, and novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Within the scope of this review are AI solutions that use algorithms within health system registries to target interventions. Clinician-targeted, patient-targeted, or system-targeted digital health interventions could be used to improve management and prevent fragility fractures. This review was commissioned by The Royal Osteoporosis Society and Bone Research Academy during the production of the 2020 Research Roadmap (https://theros.org.uk), with the intention of identifying gaps where targeted research funding could lead to improved patient health. We explore potential uses of digital technology in the general management of osteoporosis. Evidence suggests that digital technologies can support multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible patient care based on current evidence and to support patients in self-management. However, robust randomised controlled studies are still needed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies.

A clinical tool to identify older women with back pain at high risk of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (Vfrac): a population-based cohort study with exploratory economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) identify people at high risk of future fractures, but despite this, less than a third come to clinical attention. The objective of this study was to develop a clinical tool to aid health care professionals decide which older women with back pain should have a spinal radiograph. METHODS: a population-based cohort of 1,635 women aged 65+ years with self-reported back pain in the previous 4 months were recruited from primary care. Exposure data were collected through self-completion questionnaires and physical examination, including descriptions of back pain and traditional risk factors for osteoporosis. Outcome was the presence/absence of OVFs on spinal radiographs. Logistic regression models identified independent predictors of OVFs, with the area under the (receiver operating) curve calculated for the final model, and a cut-point was identified. RESULTS: mean age was 73.9 years and 209 (12.8%) had OVFs. The final Vfrac model comprised 15 predictors of OVF, with an AUC of 0.802 (95% CI: 0.764-0.840). Sensitivity was 72.4% and specificity was 72.9%. Vfrac identified 93% of those with more than one OVF and two-thirds of those with one OVF. Performance was enhanced by inclusion of self-reported back pain descriptors, removal of which reduced AUC to 0.742 (95% CI: 0.696-0.788) and sensitivity to 66.5%. Health economic modelling to support a future trial was favourable. CONCLUSIONS: the Vfrac clinical tool appears to be valid and is improved by the addition of self-reported back pain symptoms. The tool now requires testing to establish real-world clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Revision and 90-day mortality following hip arthroplasty in patients with inflammatory arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis enrolled in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

AIM: To assess revision rates and postoperative mortality in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty (HA) for inflammatory arthritis compared to hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The analysis was conducted among cases of HA that were recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) between April 2003 and December 2012 and linked to Office for National Statistics mortality records. Procedures were identified where the indication for surgery was listed as seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), other inflammatory arthritis (otherIA), or OA. 5-year revision risk and 90-day postoperative mortality according to indication were compared using Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, year of operation, implant type, and surgical approach. RESULTS: The cohort included 1457 HA procedures conducted for RA, 615 for AS, 1000 for otherIA, and 183,108 for OA. When compared with OA, there was no increased revision risk for any form of inflammatory arthritis (adjusted HRs: RA: 0.93 (0.64-1.35); AS: 1.14 (0.73-1.79); otherIA: 1.08 (0.73-1.59)). Postoperative 90-day mortality was increased for RA when compared with OA (adjusted HR: 2.86 (1.68-4.88)), but not for AS (adjusted HR: 1.56 (0.59-4.18)) or otherIA (adjusted HR: 0.64 (0.16-2.55)). CONCLUSIONS: The revision risk in HA performed for all types of inflammatory arthritis is similar to that for HA performed for OA. The 3-fold increased risk of 90-day mortality in patients with RA compared with OA highlights the need for active management of associated comorbidities in RA patients during the perioperative period.

Opportunistic diagnosis of osteoporosis, fragile bone strength and vertebral fractures from routine CT scans; a review of approved technology systems and pathways to implementation.

Osteoporosis causes bones to become weak, porous and fracture more easily. While a vertebral fracture is the archetypal fracture of osteoporosis, it is also the most difficult to diagnose clinically. Patients often suffer further spine or other fractures, deformity, height loss and pain before diagnosis. There were an estimated 520,000 fragility fractures in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2017 (costing £4.5 billion), a figure set to increase 30% by 2030. One way to improve both vertebral fracture identification and the diagnosis of osteoporosis is to assess a patient's spine or hips during routine computed tomography (CT) scans. Patients attend routine CT for diagnosis and monitoring of various medical conditions, but the skeleton can be overlooked as radiologists concentrate on the primary reason for scanning. More than half a million CT scans done each year in the National Health Service (NHS) could potentially be screened for osteoporosis (increasing 5% annually). If CT-based screening became embedded in practice, then the technique could have a positive clinical impact in the identification of fragility fracture and/or low bone density. Several companies have developed software methods to diagnose osteoporosis/fragile bone strength and/or identify vertebral fractures in CT datasets, using various methods that include image processing, computational modelling, artificial intelligence and biomechanical engineering concepts. Technology to evaluate Hounsfield units is used to calculate bone density, but not necessarily bone strength. In this rapid evidence review, we summarise the current literature underpinning approved technologies for opportunistic screening of routine CT images to identify fractures, bone density or strength information. We highlight how other new software technologies have become embedded in NHS clinical practice (having overcome barriers to implementation) and highlight how the novel osteoporosis technologies could follow suit. We define the key unanswered questions where further research is needed to enable the adoption of these technologies for maximal patient benefit.

Trajectories of pain and function in the first five years after total hip and knee arthroplasty : an analysis of patient reported outcome data from the National Joint Registry.

AIMS: To determine the trajectories of patient reported pain and functional disability over five years following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal cohort sub-study within the National Joint Registry (NJR) was undertaken. In all, 20,089 patients who underwent primary THA and 22,489 who underwent primary TKA between 2009 and 2010 were sent Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires at six months, and one, three, and five years postoperatively. OHS and OKS were disaggregated into pain and function subscales. A k-means clustering procedure assigned each patient to a longitudinal trajectory group for pain and function. Ordinal regression was used to predict trajectory group membership using baseline OHS and OKS score, age, BMI, index of multiple deprivation, sex, ethnicity, geographical location, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. RESULTS: Data described two discrete trajectories for pain and function: 'level 1' responders (around 70% of cases) in whom a high level of improvement is sustained over five years, and 'level 2' responders who had sustained improvement, but at a lower level. Baseline patient variables were only weak predictors of pain trajectory and modest predictors of function trajectory. Those with worse baseline pain and function tended to show a greater likelihood of following a 'level 2' trajectory. Six-month patient-reported outcome measures data reliably predicted the class of five-year outcome trajectory for both pain and function. CONCLUSION: The available preoperative patient variables were not reliable predictors of postoperative pain and function after THA and TKA. Reviewing patient outcomes at six months postoperatively is a reliable indicator of outcome at five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1111-1118.

Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention.

Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. PURPOSE: The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the 'model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation' within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. METHODS: A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was 'essential' and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. RESULTS: Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

Correction to: Identifying Scoliosis in Population­Based Cohorts: Automation of a Validated Method Based on Total Body Dual Energy X­ray Absorptiometry Scans.

In the original version of the article, the co-author would like to add to the acknowledgements section to highlight their funding stream (EPSRC). The revised acknowledgements is given below.

Demographic and geographical variability in physiotherapy provision following hip and knee replacement. An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR) are two of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures worldwide. Physiotherapy is core to the recovery of people following joint replacement. However, there remains uncertainty as to physiotherapy provision at a national level. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between patient impairment and geographical variation on the provision of physiotherapy among patients who undergo primary total hip or knee replacement (THR/TKR). DESIGN: Population-based observational cohort study. METHODS: Patients undergoing THR (n=17,338) or TKR (n=20,260) recorded in the National Joint Registry for England (NJR) between 2009 and 2010 and completed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) questionnaires at Baseline and 12 months postoperatively. Data were analysed on the frequency of physiotherapy over the first postoperative year across England's Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). Logistic regression analyses examined the relationship between a range of patient and geographical characteristics and physiotherapy provision. RESULTS: Following THR, patients were less likely to receive physiotherapy than following TKR patients ('some' treatment by a physiotherapist within 1st post operative year: 53% vs 79%). People with worse functional outcomes 12 months postoperatively, received more physiotherapy after THR and TKR. There was substantial variation in provision of physiotherapy according to age (younger people received more physiotherapy), gender (females received more physiotherapy) ethnicity (non-whites received more physiotherapy) and geographical location (40% of patients from South West received some physiotherapy compared to 40 73% in London after THR). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in the provision of physiotherapy nationally. This variation is not explained by differences in the patient's clinical presentation.