EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care. DESIGN: Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit. RESULTS: From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Resistance or appropriation?: Uptake of exercise after a nurse-led intervention to promote self-management for osteoarthritis.

The philosophical underpinning of trials of complex interventions is critiqued for not taking into account causal mechanisms that influence potential outcomes. In this article, we draw from in-depth interviews (with practice nurses and patients) and observations of practice meetings and consultations to investigate the outcomes of a complex intervention to promote self-management (in particular exercise) for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. We argue that nurses interpreted the intervention as underpinned by the need to educate rather than work with patients, and, drawing from Habermasian theory, we argue that expert medicalised knowledge (system) clashed with lay 'lifeworld' prerogatives in an uneven communicative arena (the consultation). In turn, the advice and instructions given to patients were not always commensurate with their 'lifeworld'. Consequently, patients struggled to embed exercise routines into their daily lives for reasons of unsuitable locality, sense-making that 'home' was an inappropriate place to exercise and using embodied knowledge to test the efficacy of exercise on pain. We conclude by arguing that using Habermasian theory helped to understand reasons why the trial failed to increase exercise levels. Our findings suggest that communication styles influence the outcomes of self-management interventions, reinforce the utility of theoretically informed qualitative research embedded within trials to improve conduct and outcomes and indicate incorporating perspectives from human geography can enhance Habermas-informed research and theorising.

The relationship between multisite peripheral joint pain and physical activity levels in older adults: A cross-sectional survey.

INTRODUCTION: Research on levels of physical activity (PA) in those with peripheral joint pain have only focused on single sites, in the knee or hips. This study investigated the levels of PA in adults with single-site and multisite peripheral joint pain compared to adults with no joint pain. METHODS: Analysis of a cross-sectional population survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) was conducted. Respondents reported any peripheral joint pain in the last 12 months in either the hands, hips, knees or feet; PA levels were self-reported using the short telephone activity rating scale. The association between PA levels, peripheral joint pain and outcomes of health status (physical and mental component scores, using SF-12) pain intensity (10-point scale) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ-5D) were investigated using analysis of variance and ordinal regressions. RESULTS: Compared to those with no joint pain, all pain groups reported lower levels of PA: joint pain in one site (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83-0.99); two sites (0.74, 0.67-0.81), three sites (0.65, 0.59-0.72) and four sites (0.47, 0.42-0.53). Across all joint pain groups, levels of PA were associated with pain intensity, physical health status, mental health status and HRQoL. DISCUSSION: Adults with more sites of peripheral joint pain were more likely to report lower levels of PA. Those with more sites of pain and lower levels of PA reported poorer outcomes. Health care providers should be aware that those with multisite joint pain are most likely to have low levels of PA.

Integrating case-finding and initial management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression into primary care long-term condition reviews: results from the ENHANCE pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is increasingly the norm; however, primary care remains focused on single diseases. Osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression are frequently comorbid with other long-term conditions (LTCs), but rarely prioritized by clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention integrating case-finding and management for osteoarthritis, anxiety, and depression within LTC reviews. METHODS: A pilot stepped-wedge RCT across 4 general practices recruited patients aged ≥45 years attending routine LTC reviews. General practice nurses provided usual LTC reviews (control period), then, following training, delivered the ENHANCE LTC review (intervention period). Questionnaires, an ENHANCE EMIS-embedded template and consultation audio-recordings, were used in the evaluation. RESULTS: General practice recruitment and training attendance reached prespecified success criteria. Three hundred and eighteen of 466 (68%) of patients invited responded; however, more patients were recruited during the control period (206 control, 112 intervention). Eighty-two percent and 78% returned their 6-week and 6-month questionnaires, respectively. Integration of the ENHANCE LTC review into routine LTC reviews varied. Case-finding questions were generally used as intended for joint pain, but to a lesser extent for anxiety and depression. Initial management through referrals and signposting were lacking, and advice was more frequently provided for joint pain. The stepped-wedge design meant timing of the training was challenging and yielded differential recruitment. CONCLUSION: This pilot trial suggests that it is feasible to deliver a fully powered trial in primary care. Areas to optimize include improving the training and reconsidering the stepped-wedge design and the approach to recruitment by targeting those with greatest need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN: 12154418). Date registered: 6 August 15. Date first participant was enrolled: 13 July 2015. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12154418?q=depression%20schizophrenia&filters=conditionCategory:Not%20Applicable&sort=&offset=5&totalResults=9&page=1&pageSize=20&searchType=basic-search.

Educational programmes for frail older people, their families, carers and healthcare professionals : A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: More people are living with frailty and requiring additional health and support services. To improve their management, the "Frailty: Core Capability Framework" in the United Kingdom recommends frailty education for older individuals, their families, carers and health professionals. We performed a systematic review of specific educational programmes for these groups. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched using dedicated search terms and inclusion criteria. To improve accuracy, two reviewers carried out the screening and selection of research papers. Information from included studies was collected using a tailored data extraction template, and quality appraisal tools were used to assess the rigour of the studies. The findings were analysed to identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies met the criteria and were included in the review. The study populations ranged from 12 to 603 and the research designs were heterogeneous (6 qualitative; 2 randomised controlled trials; 1 quasi-experimental; 1 mixed methods; 1 cross-sectional study). Whilst some methodological shortcomings were identified, all studies contributed valuable information. The results underwent narrative synthesis, which elucidated four thematic domains: (1) accessibility of educational programmes, (2) empowerment, (3) self-care, and (4) health promotion (especially exercise and nutrition). CONCLUSION: Educational programmes for older people, their carers and health professionals are important for effective frailty prevention and management. To be maximally beneficial, they should be easily accessible to all target populations and include empowerment, self-care and health promotion. Further research should explore the formulation of widely applicable, user-friendly programmes and delivery formats that can be tailored to different client groups.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of osteoarthritis management programmes in primary or community care settings: a systematic review and qualitative framework synthesis protocol.

Despite consistent international guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) management, evidence-based treatments are underutilised. OA management programmes (OAMPs) are being implemented internationally to address this evidence-practice gap. An OAMP is defined as a 'model of evidence-based, non-surgical OA care that has been implemented in a real-world setting'. Our objective is to identify, synthesise and appraise qualitative research identifying anticipated or experienced micro (individual/behavioural), meso (organisational) or macro (context/system) level barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs. Five electronic databases will be searched for papers published between 2010 and 2021. Qualitative or mixed-methods studies that include qualitative data on the anticipated or experienced barriers or facilitators to the implementation of primary or community care-based OAMPs, from the perspective of service users or service providers, will be included. The review will be reported using the PRISMA and ENTREQ guidelines. A data extraction form will be used to provide details of the included studies. Data will be analysed and identified barriers and facilitators will be mapped onto an appropriate implementation framework, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework. The appropriate JBI critical appraisal tools will be used to assess methodological quality, while the GRADE-CERQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the findings. Translation of evidence-based guidelines into practice is challenging and reliant on the quality of implementation. By comparing and contrasting anticipated and experienced barriers, this review will determine the extent of congruence between the two, and provide valuable insights into the views and experiences of key stakeholders involved in the implementation of OAMPs. The mapping of identified barriers and facilitators to behaviour change theory will enhance the applicability and construct validity of our findings and will offer significant utility for future development and implementation of OAMPs. Registration: This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021255698) on 15/07/21.

Experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in UK general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Group consultations are a relatively new concept in UK primary care and are a suggested solution to current workload pressures in general practice. Little is known about the experience of implementing and delivering this approach from staff and organisational perspectives. AIM: To explore the experience of implementing and delivering group consultations in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative telephone interview study. METHOD: Topic guides explored the perspectives and experiences of general practice staff on the implementation and delivery of group consultations. Data analysis adopted principles of the Framework Method underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 8 GPs, 8 practice nurses, 1 nurse associate, 1 practice pharmacist, 1 deputy practice manager, and 1 healthcare assistant. Four themes were identified: sense making of group consultations; the work associated with initiating group consultations; the experiences of operationalising group consultations; and sustaining change. Group consultations made sense to participants as a mechanism to reduce burden on primary care, enhance multidisciplinary working, and provide patient-centred care. Implementation required strong leadership from a 'champion', and a facilitator had a pivotal role in operationalising the approach. The associated workload was often underestimated. Barriers to embedding change included achieving whole practice buy-in, competing practice priorities, and system-level flexibility. CONCLUSION: General practice clinicians enjoyed group consultations, yet significant work is required to initiate and sustain the approach. An implementation plan considering leadership, roles and responsibilities, and wider organisational support is required at the outset. Further research or evaluation is needed to measure process outcomes.

Development, spread and impact of primary care and musculoskeletal communities of practice to assist rapid translation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Embedding research into practice is challenging. Barriers include: a shortage of time, lack of understanding of the evidence and a poor support in the clinical setting. A community of practice (CoP) model has been used to address these issues. Three 'Evidence into Practice' groups use a CoP model to assist the rapid translation of evidence into practice in primary and secondary care settings. We describe how a CoP model supports the functions, operations and outputs of three 'Evidence into Practice Groups'. METHOD: A CoP model is used to engage a broad range of clinicians, researchers, managers, patients and librarians in the complex process of acquiring research knowledge and then translating knowledge into practice. The CoP principles of Domain, Community and Practice are used to describe three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' who cater for different elements of the care and academic sector and engage a range of professional groups. This includes primary and secondary care engaging professionals such as general practitioners (GP), practice nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and librarians. All groups are clinically led, academically supported and follow similar processes to identify the best evidence and translate it into practice. As the groups reflect the context in which they work they have different operational arrangements for example frequency and time of meetings. RESULTS: The CoP model enabled three 'Evidence into Practice Groups' over time to: engage over 180 clinical and academic staff; answer 130 clinical questions; improve clinical care, gain funding for two randomised controlled trials (enrolled over n = 7000 participants) and identify areas for further research, quality improvement audit and training. CONCLUSION: The CoP model encourages the rapid translation of evidence into practice by engaging staff to identify areas of clinical concern in their own context, thereby stimulating their interest and involvement. This creates a meaningful link between research and practice. Clinical leadership and the CoP model ensure that practice change is quick and efficient. This model can be replicated at scale. Consideration needs to be given to the key ingredients to achieve impact.

A pilot study of a nurse-led integrated care review (the INCLUDE review) for people with inflammatory rheumatological conditions in primary care: feasibility study findings.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis are at an increased risk of common comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and mood problems, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Identifying and treating these problems could lead to improved patient quality of life and outcomes. Despite these risks being well-established, patients currently are not systematically targeted for management interventions for these morbidities. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a nurse-led integrated care review in primary care to identify and manage these morbidities. METHODS: A pilot cluster RCT was delivered across four UK general practices. Patients with a diagnostic Read code for one of the inflammatory rheumatological conditions of interest were recruited by post. In intervention practices (n = 2), eligible patients were invited to attend the INCLUDE review. Outcome measures included health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), patient activation, self-efficacy and treatment burden. A sample (n = 24) of INCLUDE review consultations were audio-recorded and assessed against a fidelity checklist. RESULTS: 453/789 (57%) patients responded to the invitation, although 114/453 (25%) were excluded as they either did not fulfil eligibility criteria or failed to provide full written consent. In the intervention practices, uptake of the INCLUDE review was high at 72%. Retention at 3 and 6 months both reached pre-specified success criteria. Participants in intervention practices had more primary care contacts than controls (mean 29 vs 22) over the 12 months, with higher prescribing of all relevant medication classes in participants in intervention practices, particularly so for osteoporosis medication (baseline 29% vs 12 month 46%). The intervention was delivered with fidelity, although potential areas for improvement were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this pilot study suggest it is feasible to deliver an RCT of the nurse-led integrated care (INCLUDE) review in primary care. A significant morbidity burden was identified. Early results suggest the INCLUDE review was associated with changes in practice. Lessons have been learnt around Read codes for patient identification and refining the nurse training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12765345.

Understanding the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care: a qualitative study of knowledge mobilisation using the i-PARIHS framework.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Despite research supporting best practice, evidence-based guidelines are often not followed. Little is known about the implementation of non-surgical models of care in routine primary care practice. From a knowledge mobilisation perspective, the aim of this study was to understand the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis and explore the journey from a clinical trial to implementation. METHODS: This study used two methods: secondary analysis of focus groups undertaken with general practice staff from the Managing OSteoArthritis in ConsultationS research trial, which investigated the effectiveness of an enhanced osteoarthritis consultation, and interviews with stakeholders from an implementation project which started post-trial following demand from general practices. Data from three focus groups with 21 multi-disciplinary clinical professionals (5-8 participants per group), and 13 interviews with clinical and non-clinical stakeholders, were thematically analysed utilising the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, in a theoretically informative approach. Public contributors were involved in topic guide design and interpretation of results. RESULTS: In operationalising implementation of an innovation for osteoarthritis following a trial, the importance of a whole practice approach, including the opportunity for reflection and planning, were identified. The end of a clinical trial provided opportune timing for facilitating implementation planning. In the context of osteoarthritis in primary care, facilitation by an inter-disciplinary knowledge brokering service, nested within an academic institution, was instrumental in supporting ongoing implementation by providing facilitation, infrastructure and resource to support the workload burden. 'Instinctive facilitation' may involve individuals who do not adopt formal brokering roles or fully recognise their role in mobilising knowledge for implementation. Public contributors and lay communities were not only recipients of healthcare innovations but also potential powerful facilitators of implementation. CONCLUSION: This theoretically informed knowledge mobilisation study into the uptake of a clinical innovation for osteoarthritis in primary care has enabled further characterisation of the facilitation and recipient constructs of i-PARIHS by describing optimum timing for facilitation and roles and characteristics of facilitators.

SBML Level 3: an extensible format for the exchange and reuse of biological models.

Systems biology has experienced dramatic growth in the number, size, and complexity of computational models. To reproduce simulation results and reuse models, researchers must exchange unambiguous model descriptions. We review the latest edition of the Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML), a format designed for this purpose. A community of modelers and software authors developed SBML Level 3 over the past decade. Its modular form consists of a core suited to representing reaction-based models and packages that extend the core with features suited to other model types including constraint-based models, reaction-diffusion models, logical network models, and rule-based models. The format leverages two decades of SBML and a rich software ecosystem that transformed how systems biologists build and interact with models. More recently, the rise of multiscale models of whole cells and organs, and new data sources such as single-cell measurements and live imaging, has precipitated new ways of integrating data with models. We provide our perspectives on the challenges presented by these developments and how SBML Level 3 provides the foundation needed to support this evolution.

Systems biology markup language (SBML) level 3 package: multistate, multicomponent and multicompartment species, version 1, release 2.

Rule-based modeling is an approach that permits constructing reaction networks based on the specification of rules for molecular interactions and transformations. These rules can encompass details such as the interacting sub-molecular domains and the states and binding status of the involved components. Conceptually, fine-grained spatial information such as locations can also be provided. Through "wildcards" representing component states, entire families of molecule complexes sharing certain properties can be specified as patterns. This can significantly simplify the definition of models involving species with multiple components, multiple states, and multiple compartments. The systems biology markup language (SBML) Level 3 Multi Package Version 1 extends the SBML Level 3 Version 1 core with the "type" concept in the Species and Compartment classes. Therefore, reaction rules may contain species that can be patterns and exist in multiple locations. Multiple software tools such as Simmune and BioNetGen support this standard that thus also becomes a medium for exchanging rule-based models. This document provides the specification for Release 2 of Version 1 of the SBML Level 3 Multi package. No design changes have been made to the description of models between Release 1 and Release 2; changes are restricted to the correction of errata and the addition of clarifications.

Factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of evidence-based health guidelines in primary care is challenging. This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence that investigates the factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Assia were searched (from 2000 to March 2019). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. Data were analyzed and synthesized using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: 1612 articles were screened and four articles with a total of 87 participants (46 patients, 28 GPs, 13 practice nurses) were included. Three of the studies were conducted in England within the context of an implementation trial and one was conducted in the Netherlands. The thematic synthesis revealed three overarching themes. Best practice was not enough to achieve 'buy-in' to implementation but a range of tacit motivators to implementation were identified. Healthcare professionals used patient reasons to justify engaging or not engaging with implementation. Engaging with the whole practice was important in achieving implementation. A disconnect between research and 'real-world' primary care practice influenced long-term implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relative paucity of current evidence, this systematic review has identified a series of possible disconnects may impact uptake of interventions to improve osteoarthritis care, existing between clinicians and patients, researchers and clinicians, clinicians and guidelines and within general practice itself. There remains a need to further explore the experiences of key stakeholders, including patients involved in implementation for osteoarthritis in primary care.

The INCLUDE study: INtegrating and improving Care for patients with infLammatory rheUmatological DisordErs in the community; identifying multimorbidity: Protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory rheumatic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and ankylosing spondylitis are at increased risk of common comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and anxiety and depression which lead to increased morbidity and mortality. These associated morbidities are often un-recognized and under-treated. While patients with other long-term conditions such as diabetes are invited for routine reviews in primary care, which may include identification and management of co-morbidities, at present this does not occur for patients with inflammatory conditions, and thus, opportunities to diagnose and optimally manage these comorbidities are missed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led integrated care review (the INtegrating and improving Care for patients with infLammatory rheUmatological DisordErs in the community (INCLUDE) review) for people with inflammatory rheumatological conditions in primary care. DESIGN: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial will be undertaken to test the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led integrated primary care review for identification, assessment and initial management of common comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and anxiety and depression. A process evaluation will be undertaken using a mixed methods approach including participant self-reported questionnaires, a medical record review, an INCLUDE EMIS template, intervention fidelity checking using audio-recordings of the INCLUDE review consultation and qualitative interviews with patient participants, study nurses and study general practitioners (GPs). DISCUSSION: Success of the pilot study will be measured against the engagement, recruitment and study retention rates of both general practices and participants. Acceptability of the INCLUDE review to patients and practitioners and treatment fidelity will be explored using a parallel process evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12765345.

Uptake of the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: a survey of older adults with joint pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability. NICE OA guidelines (2008) recommend that patients with OA should be offered core treatments in primary care. Assessments of OA management have identified a need to improve primary care of people with OA, as recorded use of interventions concordant with the NICE guidelines is suboptimal in primary care. The aim of this study was to i) describe the patient-reported uptake of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and ii) determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) from eight general practices in the UK as part of the MOSAICS study. Respondents who reported the presence of joint pain, a consultation in the previous 12 months for joint pain, and gave consent to medical record review formed the sample for this study. RESULTS: Four thousand fifty-nine respondents were included in the analysis (mean age 65.6 years (SD 11.2), 2300 (56.7%) females). 502 (12.4%) received an OA diagnosis in the previous 12 months. More participants reported using pharmacological treatments (e.g. paracetamol (31.3%), opioids (40.4%)) than non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. exercise (3.8%)). Those with an OA diagnosis were more likely to use written information (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.26,1.96), paracetamol (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05,1.62) and topical NSAIDs (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04,1.62) than those with a joint pain code. People aged ≥75 years were less likely to use written information (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40,0.79) and exercise (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25,0.55) and more likely to use paracetamol (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.38,2.65) than those aged < 75 years. CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional population survey was conducted to examine the uptake of the treatments that are recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and to determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Non-pharmacological treatment was suboptimal compared to pharmacological treatment. Implementation of NICE guidelines needs to examine why non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, remain under-used especially among older people.

Relationship of anxiety with joint pain and its management: A population survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study was to examine the associations between the severity of pain and anxiety in a community population reporting joint pain, and to investigate the management of joint pain in the presence of comorbid anxiety. METHODS: A population survey was carried out of people aged ≥45 years, registered with eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, UK. Respondents were asked to report pain intensity in their hands, hips, knees and feet (on a numerical rating scale), anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item [GAD-7] scale) and guideline-recommended treatments used to manage pain. Clinical anxiety was defined by a GAD-7 score of 10 or more. RESULTS: A total of 11,222 respondents with joint pain were included in the analysis, with 1,802 (16.1%) reporting clinical anxiety. Respondents reporting more severe pain were more likely to report clinical anxiety (severe versus mild pain, odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.56 to 6.31). The number of pain sites was also positively associated with clinical anxiety (four versus one site; OR 3.64, 95% CI 3.09 to 4.30). Those with clinical anxiety were less likely to undertake general fitness exercises (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.70), but more likely to diet (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.69), use walking aids (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77) and assistive devices (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49), and more likely to use opioids (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety is common among patients presenting to primary care with joint pain. Patients with anxiety are likely to manage their joint pain differently to those without. Case-finding to identify and treat anxiety would be appropriate in this population, with caution about opioid prescribing and consideration of exercise as an intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a model OA consultation for OA to support self-management compared with usual care. Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the three-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was undertaken from a UK National Health Service perspective alongside a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Differences in health outcomes between the model OA consultation and usual care arms were not statistically significant. On average, visits to the orthopaedic surgeon were lower in the model OA consultation arm by -0.28 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.06). The cost-utility analysis indicated that the model OA consultation was associated with a non-significant incremental cost of £-13.11 (95% CI: -81.09 to 54.85) and an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) of -0.003 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02), with a 44% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. The percentage of participants who took time off and the associated productivity cost were lower in the model OA consultation arm. Conclusion: Implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines using a model OA consultation in primary care does not appear to lead to increased costs, but health outcomes remain very similar to usual care. Even though the intervention seems to reduce the demand for orthopaedic surgery, overall it is unlikely to be cost-effective.