What is integrative medicine? Establishing the decision criteria for an operational definition of integrative medicine for general practice health services research in Australia.

Background: Operational definitions outline how a conceptual definition will be measured for consistent, reproducible data collection and analysis. This article reports the decision criteria that will be used for an operational definition of integrative medicine (IM) in a secondary analysis of an Australian national survey of general practitioner activity. Methods: A multidisciplinary team applied an iterative approach, informed by expert knowledge and literature reviews to establish decision criteria for categorizing the terms in the Australian clinical interface terminology of the International Classification of Primary Care, second edition (ICPC-2 PLUS) and the Coding Atlas for Pharmaceutical Substances, according to whether they reflected IM, conventional/mainstream medicine (MM), or both IM and MM (IM/MM). Results: The final decision criteria categorized all terms for examinations, investigations, advice/counselling, and drugs with synthetic ingredients, and terms for referrals to secondary care services and healthcare practitioners that are not a traditional or complementary medicine practitioner as MM. Terms that could apply to both styles of clinical practice (e.g., preventive health, lifestyle medicine, psychosocial and some drugs with natural ingredients) were categorised as IM/MM. The remaining terms, that mostly reflected the World Health Organization's theoretical definitions of traditional and complementary medicine, were categorized as IM. Conclusion: Differentiating between integrative and conventional/mainstream medicine in general practice is context specific and not always possible. The category IM/MM proposes integrative medicine as an extension, rather than an alternative. The rationale for the integrative medicine operational definition has relevance for researchers and health services in Australia, and internationally.

The Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a decision support tool for risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.

Effectiveness of a New Service Delivery Model for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and health costs of a new primary care service delivery model (the Optimising Primary Care Management of Knee Osteoarthritis [PARTNER] model) to improve health outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to usual care. METHODS: This study was a 2-arm, cluster, superiority, randomized controlled trial with randomization at the general practice level, undertaken in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. We aimed to recruit 44 practices and 572 patients age ≥45 years with knee pain for >3 months. Professional development opportunities on best practice OA care were provided to intervention group general practitioners (GPs). All recruited patients had an initial GP visit to confirm knee OA diagnosis. Control patients continued usual GP care, and intervention patients were referred to a centralized care support team (CST) for 12-months. Via telehealth, the CST provided OA education and an agreed OA action plan focused on muscle strengthening, physical activity, and weight management. Primary outcomes were patient self-reported change in knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale [range 0-10; higher score = worse]) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale [range 0-100; higher score = better] at 12 months. Health care cost outcomes included costs of medical visits and prescription medications over the 12-month period. RESULTS: Recruitment targets were not reached. A total of 38 practices and 217 patients were recruited. The intervention improved pain by 0.8 of 10 points (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.2, 1.4) and function by 6.5 of 100 points (95% CI 2.3, 10.7), more than usual care at 12 months. Total costs of medical visits and prescriptions were $3,940 (Australian) for the intervention group versus $4,161 for usual care. This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model improved knee pain and function more than usual GP care. The magnitude of improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful for pain but is uncertain for function.

Treatment for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women. Diagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes: • number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy); • proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and • adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I2 > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I2 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Studies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source. Risk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting. Primary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. We are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year. Adverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.

Integrative Medicine in General Practice in Australia: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Education Pathways and Training Needs.

BACKGROUND: Globally, a substantial proportion of general practitioners (GPs) incorporate integrative medicine (IM) into their clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to map the IM education and training pathways and needs of a cohort of Australian GPs who are members of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' IM Specific Interest Network, which is a group of GPs with interest in IM. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study comprising of an online, cross-sectional survey supplemented with in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data from the survey and interviews were initially analysed separately and then combined. RESULTS: Eighty-three (83) of 505 eligible GPs/GPs in training (16.4%) participated in the survey, and 15 GPs were interviewed. Results from the two datasets either converged or were complementary. Almost half (47%) of survey respondents had undertaken formal undergraduate or postgraduate IM education, a short course (63%), informal education (71%) or self-education (54%), in at least one of 20 IM modalities listed. Interviewees affirmed there was no single education pathway in IM. Survey respondents who identified as practicing IM were significantly more likely to have IM education, positive attitudes towards IM, particularly natural products, and higher self-rated IM knowledge and competencies. However, knowledge gaps were identified in professional skills domains of population health and context, and organisational and legal dimensions of applied IM practice. Interviewees also highlighted a range of professional and systemic barriers to the practice of IM, education, and training. There was broad support for recognition of IM as a sub-specialty through formalised post-graduate training and accreditation. Most survey respondents (62%) expressed interest in post-fellowship recognition of GPs with advanced skills in IM. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that it is important to define best practice in IM for GPs in Australia and provide a standardised pathway towards recognition of advanced skills in IM.

PARTNER: a service delivery model to implement optimal primary care management of people with knee osteoarthritis: description of development.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation strategies, such as new models of service delivery, are needed to address evidence practice gaps. This paper describes the process of developing and operationalising a new model of service delivery to implement recommended care for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a primary care setting. METHODS: Three development stages occurred concurrently and iteratively. Each stage considered the healthcare context and was informed by stakeholder input. Stage 1 involved the design of a new model of service delivery (PARTNER). Stage 2 developed a behavioural change intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) using the behavioural change wheel framework. In stage 3, the 'Care Support Team' component of the service delivery model was operationalised. RESULTS: The focus of PARTNER is to provide patients with education, exercise and/or weight loss advice, and facilitate effective self-management through behavioural change support. Stage 1 model design: based on clinical practice guidelines, known evidence practice gaps in current care, chronic disease management frameworks, input from stakeholders and the opportunities and constraints afforded by the Australian primary care context, we developed the PARTNER service-delivery model. The key components are: (1) an effective GP consultation and (2) follow-up and ongoing care provided remotely (telephone/email/online resources) by a 'Care Support Team'. Stage 2 GP behavioural change intervention: a multimodal behavioural change intervention was developed comprising a self-audit/feedback activity, online professional development and desktop software to provide decision support, patient information resources and a referral mechanism to the 'Care Support Team'. Stage 3 operationalising the 'care support team'-staff recruited and trained in evidence-based knee OA management and behavioural change methodology. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model is the result of a comprehensive implementation strategy development process using evidence, behavioural change theory and intervention development guidelines. Technologies for scalable delivery were harnessed and new primary evidence was generated as part of the process.Trial registration number ACTRN12617001595303 (UTN U1111-1197-4809).

Protocol for the process and feasibility evaluations of a new model of primary care service delivery for managing pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) using a mixed methods approach.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol outlines the rationale, design and methods for the process and feasibility evaluations of the primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) study. PARTNER is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a new model of service delivery (the PARTNER model) against 'usual care'. PARTNER is designed to encourage greater uptake of key evidence-based non-surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. The intervention supports general practitioners (GPs) to gain an understanding of the best management options available through online professional development. Their patients receive telephone advice and support for OA management by a centralised, multidisciplinary 'Care Support Team'. We will conduct concurrent process and feasibility evaluations to understand the implementation of this new complex health intervention, identify issues for consideration when interpreting the effectiveness outcomes and develop recommendations for future implementation, cost effectiveness and scalability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The UK Medical Research Council Framework for undertaking a process evaluation of complex interventions and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks inform the design of these evaluations. We use a mixed-methods approach including analysis of survey data, administrative records, consultation records and semistructured interviews with GPs and their enrolled patients. The analysis will examine fidelity and dose of the intervention, observations of trial setup and implementation and the quality of the care provided. We will also examine details of 'usual care'. The semistructured interviews will be analysed using thematic and content analysis to draw out themes around implementation and acceptability of the model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The primary and substudy protocols have been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (2016/959 and 2019/503). Our findings will be disseminated to national and international partners and stakeholders, who will also assist with wider dissemination of our results across all levels of healthcare. Specific findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and via training for healthcare professionals delivering OA management programmes. This evaluation is crucial to explaining the PARTNER study results, and will be used to determine the feasibility of rolling-out the intervention in an Australian healthcare context. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001595303; Pre-results.

Quantifying Use of a Health Virtual Community of Practice for General Practitioners' Continuing Professional Development: A Novel Methodology and Pilot Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Health care practitioners (HPs), in particular general practitioners (GPs), are increasingly adopting Web-based social media platforms for continuing professional development (CPD). As GPs are restricted by time, distance, and demanding workloads, a health virtual community of practice (HVCoP) is an ideal solution to replace face-to-face CPD with Web-based CPD. However, barriers such as time and work schedules may limit participation in an HVCoP. Furthermore, it is difficult to gauge whether GPs engage actively or passively in HVCoP knowledge-acquisition for Web-based CPD, as GPs' competencies are usually measured with pre- and posttests. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated a method for measuring the engagement features needed for an HVCoP (the Community Fracture Capture [CFC] Learning Hub) for learning and knowledge sharing among GPs for their CPD activity. METHODS: A prototype CFC Learning Hub was developed using an Igloo Web-based social media software platform and involved a convenience sample of GPs interested in bone health topics. This Hub, a secure Web-based community site, included 2 key components: an online discussion forum and a knowledge repository (the Knowledge Hub). The discussion forum contained anonymized case studies (contributed by GP participants) and topical discussions (topics that were not case studies). Using 2 complementary tools (Google Analytics and Igloo Statistical Tool), we characterized individual participating GPs' engagement with the Hub. We measured the GP participants' behavior by quantifying the number of online sessions of the participants, activities undertaken within these online sessions, written posts made per learning topic, and their time spent per topic. We calculated time spent in both active and passive engagement for each topic. RESULTS: Seven GPs participated in the CFC Learning Hub HVCoP from September to November 2017. The complementary tools successfully captured the GP participants' engagement in the Hub. GPs were more active in topics in the discussion forum that had direct clinical application as opposed to didactic, evidence-based discussion topics (ie, topical discussions). From our knowledge hub, About Osteoporosis and Prevention were the most engaging topics, whereas shared decision making was the least active topic. CONCLUSIONS: We showcased a novel complementary analysis method that allowed us to quantify the CFC Learning Hub's usage data into (1) sessions, (2) activities, (3) active or passive time spent, and (4) posts made to evaluate the potential engagement features needed for an HVCoP focused on GP participants' CPD process. Our design and evaluation methods for ongoing use and engagement in this Hub may be useful to evaluate future learning and knowledge-sharing projects for GPs and may allow for extension to other HPs' environments. However, owing to the limited number of GP participants in this study, we suggest that further research with a larger cohort should be performed to validate and extend these findings.

St John's wort for depression: scoping review about perceptions and use by general practitioners in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Extracts of Hypericum perforatum, more commonly known as St John's wort (SJW), have good evidence for treating depression. The herb is easily accessible and widely used by consumers, although it has potential for interaction with other medicines. Consumers' use of SJW is often not discussed with their general practitioners (GPs). It is unclear how GPs perceive use of SJW in practice and the implications for consumers and pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: Explore GPs' perception of SJW use in practice. METHODS: Scoping review. KEY FINDINGS: Few studies explore GPs' perceptions of SJW for depression, but they appear to recommend it infrequently, except in Germany. Reasons for limited use in practice include lack of knowledge, particularly regarding which preparations and dosages have trial evidence, and lack of standardisation of active ingredients. Guidelines either do not mention SJW or advise against its use. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers drive SJW use but often do not disclose to their GPs, which is concerning due to issues about safety. Pharmacists could play an important role here. Improved education about SJW is required for both GPs and consumers, including the need for communication between them and their pharmacists. Lack of adoption of evidence-based therapy for depression should be explored further.

Management of sore throat in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) in Victoria, Australia in the management of sore throat. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 100 GPs using a questionnaire with the same four case vignettes used in a 1994 Victorian study. RESULTS: Eighty-nine per cent of respondents indicated they would prescribe antibiotics to a child with a short history of sore throat and fever, with examination findings of fever, tonsillar pus and tender cervical lymph nodes. Only 18% of respondents indicated they would order a throat swab with culture to investigate the aetiology. Very few respondents indicated they would prescribe antibiotics to patients presenting with sore throat with clinical features consistent with a viral infection. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that there is a role for better communication of the gradual but practical changes of Australian sore throat management guidelines to GPs, which may reduce antibiotic prescribing.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

'Why don't I need a colonoscopy?' A novel approach to communicating risks and benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is significant growth in demand for colonoscopies, with over 700,000 performed in Australia in 2012-13. For every one million Australians aged 50 years and older, 80,000 people at average risk of colorectal cancer are being over-screened with colonoscopy, and 29,000 people at increased risk are not having the colonoscopy they need. METHOD: Using monitoring data from the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and published data on colonoscopic screening, we have developed expected frequency trees (EFTs) to demonstrate projected outcomes of different colorectal cancer screening options for participants at different levels of colorectal cancer risk in Australia. RESULTS: The EFTs highlight the overall balance in favour of faecal occult blood screening for those at average risk in terms of fewer deaths and complications. DISCUSSION: This novel method of risk communication can be used to promote appropriate patient choice of colorectal cancer screening modality and potentially reduce the number of referrals for colonoscopy in patients who are not at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Effectiveness of a new model of primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Protocol for THE PARTNER STUDY.

BACKGROUND: To increase the uptake of key clinical recommendations for non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and improve patient outcomes, we developed a new model of service delivery (PARTNER model) and an intervention to implement the model in the Australian primary care setting. We will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this model compared to usual general practice care. METHODS: We will conduct a mixed-methods study, including a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial, with quantitative, qualitative and economic evaluations. We will recruit 44 general practices and 572 patients with knee OA in urban and regional practices in Victoria and New South Wales. The interventions will target both general practitioners (GPs) and their patients at the practice level. Practices will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Patients will be recruited if they are aged ≥45 years and have experienced knee pain ≥4/10 on a numerical rating scale for more than three months. Outcomes are self-reported, patient-level validated measures with the primary outcomes being change in pain and function at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at 6 and 12 months. The implementation intervention will support and provide education to intervention group GPs to deliver effective management for patients with knee OA using tailored online training and electronic medical record support. Participants with knee OA will have an initial GP visit to confirm their diagnosis and receive management according to GP intervention or control group allocation. As part of the intervention group GP management, participants with knee OA will be referred to a centralised multidisciplinary service: the PARTNER Care Support Team (CST). The CST will be trained in behaviour change support and evidence-based knee OA management. They will work with patients to develop a collaborative action plan focussed on key self-management behaviours, and communicate with the patients' GPs. Patients receiving care by intervention group GPs will receive tailored OA educational materials, a leg muscle strengthening program, and access to a weight-loss program as appropriate and agreed. GPs in the control group will receive no additional training and their patients will receive usual care. DISCUSSION: This project aims to address a major evidence-to-practice gap in primary care management of OA by evaluating a new service delivery model implemented with an intervention targeting GP practice behaviours to improve the health of people with knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617001595303 , date of registration 1/12/2017.