Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Factors influencing the implementation of early discharge hospital at home and admission avoidance hospital at home: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide there is an increasing demand for Hospital at Home as an alternative to hospital admission. Although there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Hospital at Home, health service managers, health professionals and policy makers require evidence on how to implement and sustain these services on a wider scale. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home, from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, including policy makers, health service managers, health professionals, patients and patients' caregivers. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings relate to, and help to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention reviews of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus and Scopus until 17 November 2022. We also applied reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We searched for studies in any language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with qualitative data collection and analysis methods examining the implementation of new or existing Hospital at Home services from the perspective of different stakeholders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted study characteristics and intervention components, assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Checklist (CASP) and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the data across studies and identify factors that may influence the implementation of Hospital at Home. MAIN RESULTS: From 7535 records identified from database searches and one identified from citation tracking, we included 52 qualitative studies exploring the implementation of Hospital at Home services (31 Early Discharge, 16 Admission Avoidance, 5 combined services), across 13 countries and from the perspectives of 662 service-level staff (clinicians, managers), eight systems-level staff (commissioners, insurers), 900 patients and 417 caregivers. Overall, we judged 40 studies as having minor methodological concerns and we judged 12 studies as having major concerns. Main concerns included data collection methods (e.g. not reporting a topic guide), data analysis methods (e.g. insufficient data to support findings) and not reporting ethical approval. Following synthesis, we identified 12 findings graded as high (n = 10) and moderate (n = 2) confidence and classified them into four themes: (1) development of stakeholder relationships and systems prior to implementation, (2) processes, resources and skills required for safe and effective implementation, (3) acceptability and caregiver impacts, and (4) sustainability of services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Admission Avoidance and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services requires early development of policies, stakeholder engagement, efficient admission processes, effective communication and a skilled workforce to safely and effectively implement person-centred Hospital at Home, achieve acceptance by staff who refer patients to these services and ensure sustainability. Future research should focus on lower-income country and rural settings, and the perspectives of systems-level stakeholders, and explore the potential negative impact on caregivers, especially for Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home, as this service may become increasingly utilised to manage rising visits to emergency departments.

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

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

Association of baseline physical activity participation with participant characteristics and outcomes following education and exercise-therapy in people with knee osteoarthritis: A GLA:D® Australia prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether participants with knee osteoarthritis classified as 'more' or 'less' physically active at baseline differ in characteristics and/or outcomes at baseline and at 3 and 12 months following the commencement of an education and exercise-therapy program. METHODS: Prospective cohort study using the GLA:D® Australia registry. The University of California, Los Angeles Physical Activity Scale (UCLA) participant data dichotomised as 'more' (≥7) or 'less' active (≤6). Groups were compared using chi-square (obesity [baseline only], comorbidity prevalence, medication consumption, fear of damage from physical activity); and linear mixed model regression (12-item Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12], pain [visual analogue scale], health-related quality of life [QoL] [EQ-5D-5L]) statistics, adjusted for age, sex and baseline physical activity at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: We included 1059 participants (70% female). At baseline, 267 (25%) were classified as 'more' active, increasing to 29% and 30% at 3 and 12 months, respectively. At baseline, compared to the 'less' active group, the 'more' active group had a lower proportion of participants who were obese ('more' = 21% vs. 'less' = 44%), had comorbidities (58% vs. 74%) and consumed medications (71% vs. 85%); lower pain intensity (37 vs. 47); and higher KOOS-12 (59 vs. 50), and health-related QoL (0.738 vs. 0.665) scores. When accounting for age, sex and baseline physical activity, improvements seen in knee-related burden and health-related QoL were not different between groups at 3 or 12 months. Compared to the 'less' active group, the proportion of participants not consuming medication remained higher in the 'more' active group at 3 ('more' 45% vs. 'less' 28%) and 12 months (43% vs. 32%). CONCLUSION: 'More' active people with knee osteoarthritis were less likely to be obese, had fewer comorbidities, lower medication consumption, knee-related burden and pain intensity, and higher health-related QoL than 'less' active participants at all timepoints.

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

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

Broken Machines or Active Bodies? Part 3. Five Recommendations to Shift the Way Clinicians Communicate With People Who Are Seeking Care for Osteoarthritis.

SYNOPSIS: In parts 1 and 2 of this series, we highlighted the dominant impairment way of talking about osteoarthritis: talking that frames osteoarthritis as a disease of cartilage worsened by physical activity that can only be "cured" by replacing the joint. An alternative understanding that counters common misconceptions about osteoarthritis, and links physical activity and healthy lifestyles to improvements in symptoms is likely a prerequisite for sustainable behavior change. It is insufficient to tell people with osteoarthritis that regular physical activity is important; people need to understand and experience how physical activity can help. Here, we offer suggestions for how clinicians can shift from focusing on what people cannot do because of osteoarthritis, toward focusing on what people can do to improve their health and maintain "active bodies." J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(7):1-6. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11881.

Broken Machines or Active Bodies? Part 2. How People Talk About Osteoarthritis and Why Clinicians Need to Change the Conversation.

SYNOPSIS: How people talk about osteoarthritis may impact outcomes, including uptake of guideline recommendations related to activity-based lifestyles and interventions. In this editorial, we describe 2 key ways of talking, based on findings from our systematic review of 62 qualitative studies exploring the perceptions of people with knee osteoarthritis (n = 1208), their carers (n = 28), and clinicians (n = 2403). Among raw quotes extracted from the studies, we observed a dominant impairment-based way of talking and a participatory based way of talking. These ways of talking form a novel framework to help clinicians understand what people think and do about osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(6):325-330. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11880.

Broken Machines or Active Bodies? Part 1. Ways of Talking About Health and Why It Matters.

SYNOPSIS: This editorial series raises awareness among clinicians about how ways of talking about orthopaedic conditions can influence what people who are seeking health care (1) think about their health and (2) what they do to manage their health. In part 1, we introduce you to ways of talking about health, using osteoarthritis as a case study. In part 2, we describe 2 contrasting ways of talking about osteoarthritis and how changing the way you share information and ideas with people seeking care may impact clinical decisions. In part 3, we offer strategies to help you shift the way you communicate with people with osteoarthritis to promote uptake of best practice recommendations and support healthy, active lifestyles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11879.

A survey of patient and medical professional perspectives on implementing osteoarthritis management programs for hip and knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Strategies are needed to improve referral into, and uptake of, osteoarthritis (OA) management programs. This survey investigated and compared patients' and medical professionals' views around hip and knee OA management and factors impacting implementation of an osteoarthritis management program. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods program of research, patients with hip or knee OA and medical professionals routinely involved in the management of OA, were invited to complete a comprehensive online survey. All data were analysed descriptively or using chi squared tests. Survey findings for factors perceived to impact implementation of an OA management programme were triangulated with previously reported qualitative data. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (38 females, 15 males) and 32 medical professionals (orthopaedic surgeons, sports physicians, rehabilitation physicians, rheumatologists and general practitioners) completed the survey. Twenty-eight patients (53%) had prior participation in the OA management programme (GLA:D® ) and 19 medical professionals (59%) had previously referred patients to the programme. Of the participants with prior exposure, 21 patients (75%) and 15 medical professionals (79%) agreed the programme was beneficial. A higher proportion of medical professionals, compared to patients, believed weight loss (100% vs. 67%), injection therapy (50% vs. 21%), hip replacement (100% vs. 62%) and knee replacement (97% vs. 62%) were effective treatments, with no differences for all other treatments. The barriers and enablers identified for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme mostly aligned to factors identified in previous related qualitative research. Divergent factors in the survey included patients concerns about doing exercise-therapy with 81% (higher than expected) not reporting any concerns about exercising, and 19% (lower than expected) concerned about their OA joint, such as making their pain worse. CONCLUSIONS: This study has extended our understanding of barriers and enablers for referral into, and participation in, an OA management programme with a lower than expected number of patients being concerned about exercising due to their OA joint. Patients and medical professionals had positive views relating to the quality of the programme delivery, patient satisfaction and programme effectiveness. Medical professionals were more likely than patients to consider weight loss, injections and joint replacement as effective treatment options.

Barriers, enablers and acceptability of home-based care following elective total knee or hip replacement at a private hospital: A qualitative study of patient and caregiver perspectives.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate implementation of home-based care following an elective total knee or hip replacement in a private hospital, we explored patient and caregiver barriers and enablers and components of care that may increase its acceptability. METHOD: Thirty-one patients (mean age 71 years, 77% female) and 14 caregivers (mean age 69 years, 57% female) were interviewed. All themes were developed using thematic analysis, then categorised as barriers or enablers to uptake of home-based care or acceptable components of care. Barrier and enabler themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged as barriers or enablers: feeling unsafe versus confident; caregivers' willingness to provide support and patients' unwillingness to seek help; less support and opportunity to rest; positive feelings about home over the hospital; certainty about anticipated recovery; trusting specialist advice over family and friends; length of hospital stay; paying for health insurance. Five themes emerged as acceptable components: home visits prior to discharge; specific information about recovery at home; one-to-one physiotherapy and occupational therapy perceived as first-line care; medical, nursing and a 24/7 direct-line perceived as second-line care for complications; no one-size-fits-all model for domestic support. Theoretical domains relating to barriers included emotion (e.g., feeling unsafe), environmental context and resources (e.g., perceived lack of physiotherapy) and beliefs about consequences (e.g., unwillingness to burden their caregiver). Theoretical domains relating to enablers included beliefs about capabilities (e.g., feeling strong), skills (e.g., practising stairs), procedural knowledge (e.g., receiving advice about early mobility) and social influences (e.g., caregivers' willingness to provide support). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors, such as feeling unsafe and caregivers' willingness to provide support, may influence implementation of home-based care from the perspectives of privately insured patients and caregivers. Our findings provide insights to inform design of suitable home-based care following joint replacement in a private setting.

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

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

Benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic vertebral fractures affect a large number of older adults OBJECTIVES: Systematically review evidence of the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with standard care (control); and evaluate the benefits and harms of non-surgical and non-pharmacological management of people with osteoporotic vertebral fractures compared with an alternative non-pharmacological, non-invasive intervention. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE) were searched. Eligible trials included participants with primary osteoporosis and at least one vertebral fracture diagnosed on radiographs, with treatment that was non-surgical and non-pharmacological involving more than one session. RESULTS: Twenty randomized controlled trials were included with 2083 participants with osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Exercise, bracing, multimodal therapy, electrotherapy, and taping were investigated interventions. Meta-analyses provided low certainty evidence that exercise interventions compared to no exercise were effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (mean difference (MD)= 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08, 1.93), and low certainty evidence that rigid bracing intervention compared with no bracing was effective in reducing pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (MD= 2.61; 95%CI: 0.95, 4.27). Meta-analyses showed no differences in harms between exercise and no exercise groups. No health-related quality of life or activity improvements were demonstrated for exercise interventions, bracing, electrotherapy, or multimodal interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise and rigid bracing as management for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures may have a small benefit for pain without increasing risk of harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42012002936.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of atraumatic shoulder conditions: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder conditions are a major cause of morbidity in the general population. Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for shoulder conditions have been developed. Their purpose is to provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing optimal care to maximise patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and compare the content and quality of CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CPGs for atraumatic shoulder conditions will be included provided they make recommendations about diagnosis and/or management, are identified by their authors as a guideline and are consistent with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II definition of a guideline. A systematic search of electronic databases, online guideline repositories and the websites of relevant professional societies will be conducted to identify eligible CPGs. Search terms relating to shoulder conditions (eg, 'adhesive capsulitis', 'rotator cuff' and 'bursitis') will be combined with a validated search filter for CPGs. Pairs of independent reviewers will determine eligibility of CPGs identified by the search. Quality appraisal of included CPGs will be performed using the AGREE II instrument. Recommendations from each CPG and how they were determined will be extracted and compared across similar CPGs. Results from this systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. The results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to professional societies that publish shoulder CPGs, clinical policy groups, clinicians, researchers and consumers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182723.

Exploring views of orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists and general practitioners about osteoarthritis management.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of recommended treatments for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) is known to be discordant with guideline recommendations. However, professional views related to OA management across medical and surgical disciplines are not well understood. The aim of this study was to explore the views of medical professionals about management of hip and knee OA. METHODS: Qualitative study. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists and general practitioners routinely involved in the management of OA. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, member-checked, coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifteen medical professionals were interviewed. Three main themes were: (i) recognition of the importance of nonsurgical management of hip and knee OA, focussed on self-management, exercise-therapy, weight management and analgesia; (ii) joint replacement being considered the 'last resort' for end stage disease not responding to nonsurgical management; and (iii) determination of management 'success' through patient perceptions was more common than the use of validated instruments. Views on management broadly converged across disciplines, except for the role of joint replacement, considered an adjunct in the overall management of OA by rheumatologists and as a definitive cure by orthopaedic surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning with current guidelines, medical professionals recognised the importance of nonsurgical management focussed on exercise-therapy for hip and knee OA, and concurred that joint replacement surgery should be a last resort. A focus on patient education was less prominent, which along with implementation of validated outcome measures in routine medical practice, may require greater health system support.

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Physical Therapist Management of Patellofemoral Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate clinical practice guidelines for the physical therapist management of patellofemoral pain. METHODS: Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Psychinfo, Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2013 to October 2019. Additional search methods included searching websites that publish clinical practice guidelines containing recommendations for physical therapist management of patellofemoral pain. Characteristics of the guidelines were extracted, including recommendations for examination, interventions, and evaluation applicable to physical therapist practice. Quality assessment was conducted using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, applicability of recommendations to physical therapist practice was examined using the AGREE Recommendation Excellence instrument, and convergence of recommendations across guidelines was assessed. RESULTS: Four clinical practice guidelines were included. One guideline evaluated as higher quality provided the most clinically applicable set of recommendations for examination, interventions, and evaluation processes to assess the effectiveness of interventions. Guideline-recommended interventions were consistent for exercise therapy, foot orthoses, patellar taping, patient education, and combined interventions and did not recommend the use of electrotherapeutic modalities. Two guidelines evaluated as higher quality did not recommend using manual therapy (in isolation), dry needling, and patellar bracing. CONCLUSION: Recommendations from higher-quality clinical practice guidelines may conflict with routine physical therapist management of patellofemoral pain. This review provides guidance for clinicians to deliver high-value physical therapist management of patellofemoral pain. IMPACT: This review addresses an important gap between evidence and practice in the physical therapist management of patellofemoral pain. LAY SUMMARY: If you have kneecap pain, this review offers guidance for your physical therapist to provide examination processes, treatments, and evaluation processes that are recommended by high-quality guidelines.

Program evaluation of GLA:D® Australia: Physiotherapist training outcomes and effectiveness of implementation for people with knee osteoarthritis.

Objective: Evaluate the implementation of Good Life with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®) for knee osteoarthritis in Australia using the RE-AIM QuEST (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance Qualitative Evaluation for Systematic Translation) framework. Design: Physiotherapists completed surveys before and after GLA:D® training (2017-2020) to assess practices, and barriers and enablers to implementation. Patients completed online baseline, 3-month (post-treatment) and 12-month patient reported outcomes. Effective implementation was defined as within-participant moderate effect size (ES, ≥0.50) for average pain (100 â€‹mm VAS) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life scores (KOOS-QoL), and small effect size (≥0.20) for health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Results: Reach : 1064 physiotherapists and 1945 patients from all states and territories participated. Key barriers included out-of-pocket cost to patients, and program suitability for culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Effectiveness: Following training, more physiotherapists reported discussing treatment goals and weight management, and prescribing supervised, neuromuscular exercise. Patient outcomes at 3- and 12-months (n â€‹= â€‹1044 [54%] and 927 [48%]) reflected effective implementation, including reduced pain (ES, 95%CI â€‹= â€‹0.72, 0.62-0.84; and 0.65, 0.54-0.77) and improved KOOS-QoL (0.79, 0.69-0.90; and 0.93, 0.81-1.04) and EQ-5D-5L (0.43, 0.31-0.54; and 0.46, 0.35-0.58) scores. Adoption: 297 sites (264 private, 33 public) implemented GLA:D®. Implementation: Most patients completed at least one education (90%), and 10 exercise-therapy (78%) sessions. Adequate staffing to support program delivery was a key enabler. Maintenance: 99% of sites (293/297) continued offering the program in July 2020. Conclusion: Training changed practice and was associated with effective widespread implementation of GLA:D® in Australia.

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

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

Barriers and enablers to uptake of a contemporary guideline-based management program for hip and knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative study.

Objective: To explore barriers and enablers for referral to, and participation in, a contemporary guideline-based osteoarthritis management program - Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D Australia). Design: A qualitative design was used, involving semi-structured interviews with patients with osteoarthritis and medical professionals. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded and thematically analysed. Barrier and enabler themes were mapped to the theoretical domains framework and used to inform the development of recommendations for improving uptake of guideline-based osteoarthritis management programs. Results: Twenty patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis and 15 medical professionals (5 general practitioners, 4 rheumatologists, 6 orthopaedic surgeons) were included. Across both groups, three themes emerged as barriers (program access; misinformation about osteoarthritis; patient and program factors), one theme emerged as a barrier and enabler (health professional trust, feedback and advice), and two themes emerged as enablers (opportunity to achieve positive outcomes and potentially avoid joint replacement surgery; better program promotion, patient and health professional education, and efficient referral processes). Conclusions: Optimising uptake of guideline-based osteoarthritis management programs requires improved reimbursement models, and better promotion and educational initiatives for patients and medical professionals. A particular focus of education should include dispelling misinformation about osteoarthritis, and highlighting the safety and value of physiotherapist delivered exercise-therapy.

Experience of living with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVES: Systematically review the qualitative literature on living with knee osteoarthritis from patient and carer perspectives. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus) were searched from inception until October 2018. Data were synthesised using thematic and content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Studies exploring the experiences of people living with knee osteoarthritis, and their carers were included. Studies exploring experiences of patients having participated in specific interventions, including surgery, or their attitudes about the decision to proceed to knee replacement were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles reporting data from 21 studies about the patient (n=665) and carer (n=28) experience of living with knee osteoarthritis were included. Seven themes emerged: (i) Perceived causes of knee osteoarthritis are multifactorial and lead to structural damage to the knee and deterioration over time (n=13 studies), (ii) Pain and how to manage it predominates the lived experience (n=19 studies), (iii) Knee osteoarthritis impacts activity and participation (n=16 studies), (iv) Knee osteoarthritis has a social impact (n=10 studies), (v) Knee osteoarthritis has an emotional impact (n=13 studies), (vi) Interactions with health professionals can be positive or negative (n=11 studies), (vii) Knee osteoarthritis leads to life adjustments (n=14 studies). A single study reporting the perspectives of carers reported similar themes. Psychosocial impact of knee osteoarthritis emerged as a key factor in the lived experience of people with knee osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the value of considering patient attitudes and experiences including psychosocial factors when planning and implementing management options for people with knee osteoarthritis. Trial registrationnumber CRD42018108962.