Osteoarthritis Year In Review 2024: Rehabilitation and outcomes.

This Year in Review presents key highlights from recent research relating to osteoarthritis rehabilitation and its outcomes, defined as any non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatment that aims to improve osteoarthritis symptoms at any joint. Three databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL Plus) were searched between 1 March 2023 to 12 March 2024. Relevant studies were chosen based on the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, perceived clinical importance, quality, controversy in the field, or personal interest, and organised into four overarching themes (with 1-5 sub-themes each). The first theme related to uncertainties regarding exercise benefits. New work has challenged the clinical effectiveness of exercise on symptoms, as well as highlighted uncertainty around our understanding of both mechanisms of effects, how to enhance effectiveness and adherence, and which subgroups of people are more or less likely to improve with exercise. However, we also highlight new work confirming the role of exercise as a first-line management strategy. The second theme related to digital modes of service delivery. There was new evidence to support its effectiveness in improving symptoms and clear potential for creating and evaluating new mobile apps. New work also highlighted the potential future role artificial intelligence can have in providing treatment information and recommendations. The third theme related to patient education, and the call for change to the impairment-based narrative that prevails in osteoarthritis information. The fourth theme is related to weight loss. New work compared the effectiveness of different weight loss diets and explored alternative models of weight loss delivery.

Understanding Negative and Positive Feelings About Telerehabilitation in People With Chronic Knee Pain: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) initial feelings of people with knee osteoarthritis who are unexpectedly offered telerehabilitation, and (2) if their experiences met their expectations, and their willingness to use telerehabilitation in the future. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study of 122 people with knee osteoarthritis who were randomized to receive physiotherapist-delivered telerehabilitation in a clinical trial. METHODS: At enrollment in the trial, participants were unaware care would be delivered via telerehabilitation. At completion, quantitative (Likert scales, analyzed descriptively) and qualitative (open-text, underwent content/thematic analysis) questions asked participants about their initial feelings when randomized to telerehabilitation, if experiences met expectations, and willingness to use telerehabilitation in the future. RESULTS: Data were collected between October 2021 to March 2023. At enrollment, 44 (36% of 122) participants initially felt negative toward telerehabilitation (doubts about effectiveness, physiotherapist can't see/touch, believe in-person is better, can't communicate effectively, not good with technology), 18 (15%) were neutral, and 60 (49%) felt positive. After experiencing telerehabilitation, 43 (72%) people who were initially positive and 27 (61%) who were initially negative believed telerehabilitation exceeded their expectations (easier than expected, surprised by benefits/effectiveness, strong rapport with physiotherapist, convenience). Twenty-eight (23% of 122) people were not at all or slightly willing to use telerehabilitation in future (prefer hands-on, doesn't allow adequate assessment/observation, prefer in-person, don't like telerehabilitation). CONCLUSION: One in 2 people were positive about telerehabilitation from the outset, and 6 in 10 people who initially felt negative about telerehabilitation found that their experiences were better than expected. One in 4 people were unwilling to use telerehabilitation in the future, even after they had experienced it. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):1-14. Epub 11 June 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12383.

Associations between static foot posture, dynamic in-shoe plantar foot forces and knee pain in people with medial knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate relationships between static foot posture, dynamic plantar foot forces and knee pain in people with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Data from 164 participants with symptomatic, moderate to severe radiographic medial knee OA were analysed. Knee pain was self-reported using a numerical rating scale (NRS; scores 0-10; higher scores worse) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale (KOOS; scores 0-100; lower scores worse). Static foot posture was assessed using clinical tests (foot posture index, foot mobility magnitude, navicular drop). Dynamic plantar foot forces (lateral, medial, whole foot, medial-lateral ratio, arch index) were measured using an in-shoe plantar pressure system while walking. Relationships between foot posture and plantar forces (independent variables) and pain (dependent variables) were evaluated using linear regression models, unadjusted and adjusted for sex, walking speed, Kellgren & Lawrence grade, shoe category, and body mass (for dynamic plantar foot forces). RESULTS: No measure of static foot posture was associated with any knee pain measure. Higher medial-lateral foot force ratio at midstance, and a higher arch index during overall stance, were weakly associated with higher knee pain on the NRS (regression coefficient = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.28) and KOOS (coefficient=3.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 5.35) pain scales, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dynamic plantar foot forces, but not static foot posture, were associated with knee pain in people with medial knee OA. However, the amount of pain explained by increases in plantar foot force was small; thus, these associations are unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course. METHODS: A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

Exploring Experiences of People With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Received a Physiotherapist-Delivered Dietary Weight Loss and Exercise Intervention: A Mixed Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the experiences of people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who received a very low energy diet (VLED) and exercise program from a physiotherapist. METHODS: Mixed methods study involving questionnaires (n = 42) and semistructured interviews (n = 22) with randomized control trial participants with knee OA who had received a 6-month physiotherapist-delivered VLED weight loss and exercise intervention. Questionnaires measured participant satisfaction and perceptions about physiotherapist's skills/knowledge in delivery of the dietary intervention (measured on 5-7 point Likert scales). Interviews explored participant's experiences and were analyzed based on the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Questionnaire response: 90%. Participants were satisfied with the program (95%), confident their physiotherapist had the required skills (84%) and knowledge (79%) to deliver the dietary intervention, felt comfortable talking to the physiotherapist about weight (74%), and would recommend others see a physiotherapist for the intervention they undertook (71%). The following four themes were developed from the interviews: (1) one-stop-shop of exercise and diet; (2) physiotherapist-delivered weight loss works (unsure initially; successfully lost weight); (3) physiotherapists knowledge and skills (exercise is forte; most thought physiotherapists had the necessary weight loss skills/knowledge, but some disagreed); and (4) physiotherapists have a role in weight loss (physiotherapists are intelligent, credible, and trustworthy; specific training in weight loss necessary). CONCLUSION: This study provides, to our knowledge, the first documented perspectives from people with OA who have received a physiotherapist-delivered weight loss intervention. Findings suggest physiotherapists may have a role in delivering a protocolized dietary intervention for some people with knee OA with overweight and obesity.

Alternative models to support weight loss in chronic musculoskeletal conditions: effectiveness of a physiotherapist-delivered intensive diet programme for knee osteoarthritis, the POWER randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if physiotherapists can deliver a clinically effective very low energy diet (VLED) supplementary to exercise in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and overweight or obesity. METHODS: 88 participants with knee OA and body mass index (BMI) >27 kg/m2 were randomised to either intervention (n=42: VLED including two daily meal replacement products supplementary to control) or control (n=46: exercise). Both interventions were delivered by unblinded physiotherapists via six videoconference sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight at 6 months, measured by a blinded assessor. Secondary outcomes included BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, self-reported measures of pain, function, satisfaction and perceived global change, and physical performance tests. RESULTS: The intervention group lost a mean (SD) of 8.1% (5.2) body weight compared with 1.0% (3.2) in the control group (mean (95% CI) between-group difference 7.2% (95% CI 5.1 to 9.3), p<0.001), with significantly lower BMI and waist circumference compared with control group at follow-up. 76% of participants in the intervention group achieved ≥5% body weight loss and 37% acheived ≥10%, compared with 12% and 0%, respectively, in the control group. More participants in the intervention group (27/38 (71.1%)) reported global knee improvement than in the control group (20/42 (47.6%)) (p=0.02). There were no between-group differences in any other secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: A VLED delivered by physiotherapists achieved clinically relevant weight loss and was safe for people with knee OA who were overweight or obese. The results have potential implications for future service models of care for OA and obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NIH, US National Library of Medicine, Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04733053 (1 February 2021).

Evaluation of Patient-Facing Mobile Apps to Support Physiotherapy Care: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health interventions delivered through mobile apps are increasingly used in physiotherapy care. This may be because of the potential of apps to facilitate changes in behavior, which is central to the aims of care delivered by physiotherapists. A benefit of using apps is their ability to incorporate behavior change techniques (BCTs) that can optimize the effectiveness of physiotherapeutic interventions. Research continues to suggest that despite their importance, behavior change strategies are often missing in patient management. Evaluating mobile apps that physiotherapists can use to drive behavior change may inform clinical practice and potentially improve patient outcomes. Examining the quality of apps and exploring their key features that can support behavior change and physiotherapy care are important aspects of such an evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to describe the range of mobile apps in app stores that are intended for use by patients to support physiotherapy care. The secondary aims were to assess app quality, BCTs, and their behavior change potential. METHODS: A systematic review of mobile apps in app stores was undertaken. The Apple App Store and Google Play were searched using a 2-step search strategy, using terms relevant to the physiotherapy discipline. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied: apps had to be intended for use by patients and be self-contained (or stand-alone) without the requirement to be used in conjunction with a partner wearable device or another plugin. Included apps were coded for BCTs using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. App quality was assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale, and the App Behavior Change Scale was used to assess the app's potential to change behavior. RESULTS: In total, 1240 apps were screened, and 35 were included. Of these 35 apps, 22 (63%) were available on both the Apple App Store and Google Play platforms. In total, 24 (69%) were general in their focus (eg, not condition-specific), with the remaining 11 (31%) being more specific (eg, knee rehabilitation and pelvic floor training). The mean app quality score (Mobile App Rating Scale) was 3.7 (SD 0.4) of 5 (range 2.8-4.5). The mean number of BCTs identified per app was 8.5 (SD 3.6). BCTs most frequently included in the apps were instruction on how to perform a behavior (n=32), action planning (n=30), and self-monitoring of behavior (n=28). The mean behavior change potential score (App Behavior Change Scale) was 8.5 (SD 3.1) of 21 (range 3-15). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile apps available to support patient care received from a physiotherapist are of variable quality. Although they contain some BCTs, the potential for behavior change varied widely across apps. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/29047.

Telerehabilitation consultations with a physiotherapist for chronic knee pain versus in-person consultations in Australia: the PEAK non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telerehabilitation whether perceived as less effective than in-person care for musculoskeletal problems. We aimed to determine if physiotherapy video conferencing consultations were non-inferior to in-person consultations for chronic knee pain. METHODS: In this non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, we recruited primary care physiotherapists from 27 Australian clinics. Using computer-generated blocks, participants with chronic knee pain consistent with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by physiotherapist and clinic) in-person or telerehabilitation (ie, video conferencing) physiotherapist consultations. Participants and physiotherapists were unmasked to group assignment. Both groups had five consultations over 3 months for strengthening, physical activity, and education. Primary outcomes were knee pain (on a numerical rating scale of 0-10) and physical function (using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index of 0-68) at 3 months after randomisation. Primary analysis was by modified intention-to-treat using all available data. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001240134. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2019, and June 17, 2022, 394 adults were enrolled, with 204 allocated to in-person care and 190 to telerehabilitation. 15 primary care physiotherapists were recruited. At 3 months, 383 (97%) participants provided information for primary outcomes and both groups reported improved pain (mean change 2·98, SD 2·23 for in-person care and 3·14, 1·87 for telerehabilitation) and function (10·20, 11·63 and 10·75, 9·62, respectively). Telerehabilitation was non-inferior for pain (mean difference 0·16, 95% CI -0·26 to 0·57) and function (1·65, -0·23 to 3·53). The number of participants reporting adverse events was similar between groups (40 [21%] for in-person care and 35 [19%] for telerehabilitation) and none were serious. INTERPRETATION: Telerehabilitation with a physiotherapist is non-inferior to in-person care for chronic knee pain. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council.

Effectiveness of a telehealth-delivered clinician-supported exercise and weight loss program for hip osteoarthritis - protocol for the Better Hip randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability worldwide. Self-management is vital with education, exercise and weight loss core recommended treatments. However, evidence-practice gaps exist, and service models that increase patient accessibility to clinicians who can support lifestyle management are needed. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a telehealth-delivered clinician-supported exercise and weight loss program (Better Hip) on the primary outcomes of hip pain on walking and physical function at 6 months, compared with an information-only control for people with hip OA. METHODS: A two-arm, parallel-design, superiority pragmatic randomised controlled trial. 212 members from a health insurance fund aged 45 years and over, with painful hip OA will be recruited. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive: i) Better Hip; or ii) web-based information only (control). Participants randomised to the Better Hip program will have six videoconferencing physiotherapist consultations for education about OA, prescription of individualised home-based strengthening and physical activity programs, behaviour change support, and facilitation of other self-management strategies. Those with a body mass index > 27 kg/m2, aged < 80 years and no specific health conditions, will also be offered six videoconferencing dietitian consultations to undertake a weight loss program. Participants in the control group will be provided with similar educational information about managing hip OA via a custom website. All participants will be reassessed at 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are hip pain on walking and physical function. Secondary outcomes include measures of pain; hip function; weight; health-related quality of life; physical activity levels; global change in hip problem; willingness to undergo hip replacement surgery; rates of hip replacement; and use of oral pain medications. A health economic evaluation at 12 months will be conducted and reported separately. DISCUSSION: Findings will determine whether a telehealth-delivered clinician-supported lifestyle management program including education, exercise/physical activity and, for those with overweight or obesity, weight loss, is more effective than information only in people with hip OA. Results will inform the implementation of such programs to increase access to core recommended treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000461796).

Referral Patterns for People With Musculoskeletal Complaints in General Practice: An Analysis From an Australian Primary Care Database.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine referral patterns for people with musculoskeletal complaints presenting to Australian general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: This longitudinal analysis from the Population Level Analysis Reporting (POLAR) database includes 133,279 patients with low back (≥18 years old) or neck, shoulder, and/or knee (≥45 years old) complaints seen by 4,538 GPs across 269 practices from 2014 through 2018. Referrals to allied health and medical and/or surgical specialists were included. We determined the number of patients with referrals and GPs who made referrals and examined their timing, associations, and trends over time. RESULTS: A total of 43,666 patients (33%) received and 3,053 GPs (67%) made at least one referral. Most referrals were to allied health (n = 25,830, 19%), followed by surgeons (n = 18,805, 14%). Surgical referrals were higher for knee complaints (n = 6,140, 24%) compared with low back, neck, and shoulder complaints (range 8%-15%). The referral category varied predominantly by body region followed by gender, socioeconomic status, and primary health network. Time to allied health referral ranged between median (interquartile range [IQR]) 14 days (0-125 days) for neck complaints and 56 days (5-177 days) for knee complaints. Surgical referrals occurred sooner for those with knee complaints (15 days, IQR 0-128 days). There was a 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9%-2.4%) annual increase in the proportion of allied health referrals and a 1.9% (95% CI 1.6%-2.1%) decrease in surgical referrals across all sites. CONCLUSION: One-third of patients receive, and two-thirds of GPs make, referrals for musculoskeletal complaints. Understanding the reasons for referral and differences between GPs who refer more and less frequently may identify factors that explain variations in practice.

Exploring attitudes of people with chronic health conditions towards the use of group-based telerehabilitation: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The study explores the attitudes of people with chronic health conditions towards the use of group-based telerehabilitation. DESIGN: A qualitative research study. SETTING: The setting involved semi-structured focus groups via videoconferencing software. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 18 people with chronic health conditions including cardiorespiratory, neurological and musculoskeletal conditions was recruited via national patient advocacy and support groups in Ireland and clinical contacts. The sample included both those who had, and had not, previously engaged in telerehabilitation programmes. PROCEDURES: An online questionnaire collected demographic information and data regarding previous telerehabilitation participation and telerehabilitation preferences. Focus groups were conducted using videoconferencing software, in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) Checklist, and analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's methodology. Findings were triangulated with quantitative questionnaire data. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted including participants with chronic cardiorespiratory (n = 8), neurological (n = 6) and musculoskeletal (n = 4) conditions. Three themes were identified regarding telerehabilitation: (a) benefits and facilitators (including convenience, increased service accessibility, social connection and technological support), (b) challenges and barriers (including technological access and literacy, limited 'hands-on' therapy, safety concerns and social limitations), and (c) preferences (regarding mode of delivery, content, duration and generic programmes for mixed-condition groups). CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation is convenient for people with chronic conditions; however, concerns exist regarding the use of technology and the limitations of this healthcare delivery method. The role of telerehabilitation is valued, and future programmes should acknowledge patient preferences including a hybrid model of care, exercise and educational content, social interaction and synchronous components.

A self-directed digital exercise program for hip osteoarthritis ("My Hip Exercise"): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading global cause of chronic pain and disability. Given there is no cure for OA, patient self management is vital with education and exercise being core recommended treatments. However, there is under-utilisation of these treatments due to a range of clinician and patient factors. Innovative service models that increase patient accessibility to such treatments and provide support to engage are needed. This study primarily aims to determine the effects of a self-directed digital exercise intervention comprising online education and exercise supported by a mobile app to facilitate adherence on the primary outcomes of changes in hip pain during walking and patient-reported physical function at 24-weeks when compared to online education control for people with hip OA. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, superiority parallel-design, randomised controlled trial involving 182 community volunteers aged 45 years and over, with painful hip OA. After completing the baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to either: i) digital exercise intervention; or ii) digital education (control). Participants randomised to the intervention group will have access to a website that provides information about hip OA and its management, advice about increasing their physical activity levels, a 24-week lower limb strength exercise program to be undertaken at home three times per week, and a mobile app to reinforce home exercise program adherence. Participants in the control group will have access to a website containing only information about hip OA and its management. All participants will be reassessed at 24 weeks after randomisation. Primary outcomes are severity of hip pain while walking using an 11-point numeric rating scale and physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale. Secondary outcomes are the Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales of pain, hip-related quality of life, and function, sports and recreational activities; global change in hip condition; health-related quality of life; measures of physical activity levels; fear of movement; self efficacy for pain and for exercise; and use of oral pain medications. DISCUSSION: Innovative and scalable approaches to OA education, physical activity, and exercise are required in order to improve exercise participation/engagement and mitigate physical inactivity in the hip OA population. This will help minimise the burden of this major public health issue on individuals and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001533785).

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice. METHODS: In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. RESULTS: We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies. CONCLUSION: An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research. REGISTER: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

Effects of Hip Pain Diagnostic Labels and Their Explanations on Beliefs About Hip Pain and How to Manage It: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of diagnostic labels and their explanations on people's beliefs about managing hip pain. DESIGN: Online randomized controlled trial involving 626 participants. METHODS: Participants aged ≥45 years with and without hip pain considered a hypothetical scenario (initial doctor consultation for hip pain). They were randomized to receive a diagnostic label and explanation of (1) hip osteoarthritis, (2) persistent hip pain, or (3) hip degeneration. Primary outcomes were the beliefs (1) exercise would damage the hip and (2) surgery is necessary at some stage (scales, 0 = definitely would not/unnecessary, 10 = definitely would/necessary). Secondary outcomes included beliefs about other treatments and care providers. RESULTS: Compared to hip degeneration, participants who were allocated to hip osteoarthritis and persistent hip pain believed exercise was less damaging (mean difference -1.3 [95% CI: -1.9, -0.7] and -1.8 [-2.3, -1.2], respectively) and surgery less necessary (-1.5 [-2.1, -1.0] and -2.2 [-2.7, -1.6], respectively). Compared to hip osteoarthritis, participants who were allocated to persistent hip pain believed surgery was less necessary (-0.7 [-1.2, -0.1]), but not that exercise was less damaging (-0.5 [-1.1, 0.1]). Compared to hip degeneration, participants who were allocated to hip osteoarthritis and persistent hip pain were less concerned about their hip and believed exercise and care from an exercise and sports physician, rheumatologist, or physiotherapist would be more helpful, and care from an orthopaedic surgeon less helpful. CONCLUSIONS: People who were allocated a diagnostic label and explanation of hip osteoarthritis or persistent hip pain believed exercise was less damaging and surgery less necessary for a hip problem than hip degeneration. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(11):673-684. Epub 5 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11984.

Lessons learnt from a nationally funded training and mentoring programme for early-mid career musculoskeletal researchers in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Quality training and mentoring are crucial components of successful career development for early mid career researchers (EMCRs). This paper describes the overarching framework of novel ongoing national Training and Mentoring Programme Melbourne University Sydney Queensland:Impact (MUSQ:Impact) for musculoskeletal researchers, including a description of how it was set up and established, and lessons learned from its implementation. RESULTS: The MUSQ:Impact programme spans four multidisciplinary musculoskeletal research teams across three universities in Australia, comprising 40-60 EMCR members. It was established to provide EMCRs with a unique learning environment and opportunities to gain exposure to, and network with, other national musculoskeletal research teams. Specific goals are to focus on core research competencies (e.g. writing skills, managing grant budgets, public speaking and media engagement, research translation), provide career mentoring, fund development activities (e.g. conference attendance, laboratory visits, skill development courses), and share training resources (e.g. data dictionaries, project summaries). A Steering Committee of 10-12 EMCR members, co-chaired by a senior researcher and one EMCR, is responsible for overseeing MUSQ:Impact and organising regular activities, including a monthly webinar series, a mentor/mentee scheme, annual group research retreats, annual infographic competition, and funding awards. An evaluation survey found that most participants perceived each activity to be beneficial and of value to their research career and development. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the structure of national training and mentoring programme that serves as a potential template for other research teams to adapt within their own contexts.

The OARSI Joint Effort Initiative: Priorities for osteoarthritis management program implementation and research 2024-2028.

Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative (JEI) is an international collaboration of clinicians, researchers, and consumer organisations with a shared vision of improving the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify JEI's future priorities and guide direction. Design: A two-part international survey to prioritise topics of importance to our membership and research stakeholders. Survey one presented a list of 40 topics under 5 themes. Consenting participants were asked to choose their top three topics in each theme. A short list of 25 topics was presented in survey two. Participants were asked to rank the importance (100-point NRS scale, 100 â€‹= â€‹highest priority). Response frequency (median, IQR) was used to rank the top priorities by theme. Results: Ninety-five participants completed survey one (61% female, 48% clinicians) and 57 completed survey two. The top ranked topic/s were:i. Promotion and advocacy: support training for health professionals (median 85, IQR 24).ii. Education and training: incorporating behaviour change into OAMPs (80, 16), advanced OA skills (80, 30), and integration of OA education into clinical training (80, 36).iii. Improving OAMPs delivery: regular updates on changes to best-evidence OA care (84, 24).iv. Future research: improve uptake of exercise, physical activity, and weight-loss (89, 16).v. Enhancing relationships, alliances, and shared knowledge: promote research collaborations (81, 30), share challenges and opportunities for OAMP implementation (80, 23). Conclusions: These topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

Adherence to a Web-based Exercise Programme: A Feasibility Study Among Patients with Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To describe adherence to a 12-week web-based aerobic exercise programme, to compare characteristics between those who adhere or not, and to identify barriers for exercising in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Single-arm feasibility study. SUBJECTS: Patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis in specialist healthcare, age 40-80 years, and not candidates for joint surgery. METHODS: Adherence to a 12-week exercise programme was defined as having completed ≥ 2 exercise sessions a week for at least 8 weeks. Baseline differences between adherent and non-adherent groups in demographics, symptoms, disability, physical activity and fitness were assessed using Mann-Whitney U or χ2 tests. Reasons for not completing exercise sessions were reported in weekly diaries.  Results: A total of 29 patients (median age 64 years, 72% female) were included. Median baseline pain (numerical rating scale 0-10) was 5. Fifteen patients adhered to the exercise programme, 14 did not. Non-adherent patients were less active (p = 0.032) and had lower cardiorespiratory fitness (p = 0.031). The most frequently reported barrier to exercising was sickness. Less than 10% reported pain as a barrier. CONCLUSION: Half of the patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis adhered to the digitally delivered exercise programme and the most frequently reported barrier for adherence was sickness, while less than 10% reported pain as a reason for not exercising. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04084834. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics South-East, 2018/2198.

Development of a consumer involvement strategy for a small university-based musculoskeletal research centre.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a Consumer Involvement Strategy which adheres to best practice recommendations and is feasible to implement in a small musculoskeletal research centre funded solely by external grants. METHODS: The Strategy development involved five collaborative and iterative stages: (1) conceptualisation and initial consultation; (2) formation of the Consumer Involvement Strategy Action Group; (3) defining the scope and developing the strategy; (4) consultation and refinement; and (5) presentation and implementation. The final three stages were overseen by a Consumer Involvement Strategy Action Group comprising two post-doctoral research fellows, a PhD student representative, and two consumers (people with osteoarthritis), all with experience in consumer involvement activities in research. RESULTS: The final strategy aligns with best practice recommendations and includes five unique levels of consumer involvement that were devised to encompass the wide variety of consumer involvement activities across the research centre. It includes a policy document with five strategic aims, each supported by an implementation plan, and includes a suite of resources for researchers and consumers to support its application. CONCLUSION: The Consumer Involvement Strategy and its described development may serve as a template for other research teams facing similar resource constraints, both at a national and international level.

'I saw it as a marriage-You can't have one without the other': A qualitative study of patient and physiotherapist experiences with a therapeutic combined strength and aerobic physical activity exercise programme for hip osteoarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To explore physiotherapist and patient experiences with, and acceptability of, a 12-week physiotherapist-guided combined strength and aerobic physical activity exercise programme for hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 people with hip OA and four physiotherapists. Patients underwent a 12-week home exercise programme customised by weekly visits with one of the four physiotherapists. The programme aimed for patients to participate in 150 min of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, and 20-30 min of strengthening exercise 2-3 times per week in concordance with American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) dosage guidelines. Following the programme, patients and physiotherapists participated in individual semi-structured interviews to explore the acceptability of the exercise programme and barriers and facilitators to participation. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Five over-arching themes (supporting subthemes) were identified from both patient and physiotherapist interviews: (i) positive outcomes (functional improvements, pain relief, empowerment through experience, commitment to continue); (ii) combined benefits of aerobic and strength exercises (complimentary effects, strengthening exercises key); (iii) valuing support from the physiotherapist (personalised care, skill performance feedback, coach effect, accountability); (iv) motivation and opportunity for exercise (positive symptom loop, integration into daily routine, prior exercise experience, Fitbit motivation); and (v) time-consuming commitment (physiotherapy visit frequency, travel inconvenience, time for exercise). CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of participants in this study indicate that, although time-consuming, a combined aerobic physical activity and strengthening programme prescribed at ACSM dosage guidelines is acceptable and confers positive outcomes in individuals with hip OA.