Pain Coping and Healthcare Use in Patients with Early Knee and/or Hip Osteoarthritis: 10-Year Follow-Up Data from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) Study.

BACKGROUND: Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) among older adults account for substantial disability and extensive healthcare use. Effective pain coping strategies help to deal with OA. This study aims to determine the long-term relationship between pain coping style and the course of healthcare use in patients with knee and/or hip OA over 10 years. METHODS: Baseline and 10-year follow-up data of 861 Dutch participants with early knee and/or hip OA from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) cohort were used. The amount of healthcare use (HCU) and pain coping style were measured. Generalized Estimating Equations were used, adjusted for relevant confounders. RESULTS: At baseline, 86.5% of the patients had an active pain coping style. Having an active pain coping style was significantly (p = 0.022) associated with an increase of 16.5% (95% CI, 2.0-32.7) in the number of used healthcare services over 10 years. CONCLUSION: Patients with early knee and/or hip OA with an active pain coping style use significantly more different healthcare services over 10 years, as opposed to those with a passive pain coping style. Further research should focus on altered treatment (e.g., focus on self-management) in patients with an active coping style, to reduce HCU.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention Compared With Face-to-Face Physiotherapy in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is a leading contributor to disability worldwide, and its socioeconomic burden is substantial. Self-management support is an important recommendation in clinical guidelines for the physiotherapy treatment of patients with LBP and may support cost-effective management. However, providing adequate individually tailored self-management support is difficult. The integration of web-based applications into face-to-face care (ie, blended care) seems promising to optimize tailored treatment and enhance patients' self-management and, consequently, may reduce LBP-related costs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) compared with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care physiotherapy. Patients with nonspecific LBP were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) (n=104) or face-to-face physiotherapy (n=104). The content of both interventions was based on the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary clinical outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1a). For the economic evaluation, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning were the primary outcomes. Secondary clinical outcomes included fear avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. Costs were measured from societal and health care perspectives using self-report questionnaires. Effectiveness was estimated using linear mixed models. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were conducted to estimate total cost and effect differences for the economic evaluation. RESULTS: Neither clinically relevant nor statistically substantial differences were found between stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy regarding physical functioning (mean difference [MD] -1.1, 95% CI -3.9 to 1.7) and QALYs (MD 0.026, 95% CI -0.020 to 0.072) over 12 months. Regarding the secondary outcomes, fear avoidance beliefs showed a statistically significant improvement in favor of stratified blended physiotherapy (MD -4.3, 95% CI -7.3 to -1.3). Societal and health care costs were higher for stratified blended physiotherapy than for face-to-face physiotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (societal: €972 [US $1027], 95% CI -€1090 to €3264 [US -$1151 to $3448]; health care: €73 [US $77], 95% CI -€59 to €225 [US -$62 to $238]). Among the disaggregated cost categories, only unpaid productivity costs were significantly higher for stratified blended physiotherapy. From both perspectives, a considerable amount of money must be paid per additional QALY or 1-point improvement in physical functioning to reach a relatively low to moderate probability (ie, 0.23-0.81) of stratified blended physiotherapy being cost-effective compared with face-to-face physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is neither more effective for improving physical functioning nor more cost-effective from societal or health care perspectives compared with face-to-face physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 94074203; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Trajectories of Adherence to Home-Based Exercise Recommendations Among People With Low Back Pain: A Longitudinal Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the presence of distinct trajectories of adherence to home-based exercise recommendations among people with low back pain (LBP). This study also aimed to identify differences in baseline characteristics among groups. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of a stratified blended physical therapist intervention compared to usual care physical therapy in patients with LBP. The intervention group received usual care with integrated support via a smartphone app. A total of 208 patients were recruited from 58 primary care physical therapist practices. Baseline data included patient characteristics, physical functioning, pain intensity, physical activity, fear avoidance, pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, self-management ability, and health-related quality of life. The Exercise Adherence Scale (score range = 0-100) was used to measure adherence during each treatment session. Latent class growth analysis was used to estimate trajectories of adherence. RESULTS: Adherence data were available from 173 out of 208 patients (83%). Data were collected during an average of 5.1 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.5) treatment sessions, with total treatment duration of 51 (SD = 41.7) days. Three trajectory classes were identified: "declining adherence" (12%), "stable adherence" (45%), and "increasing adherence" (43%). No differences in baseline characteristic were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Three adherence trajectories to exercise recommendations were identified in patients with LBP. However, baseline characteristics cannot identify a patient's trajectory group. IMPACT: Despite the presence of distinct trajectories of adherence in patients with LBP, physical therapists should not attempt to place a patient in a trajectory group at the start of treatment. Instead, adherence should be closely monitored as treatment progresses and supported when required as part of an ongoing process.

Blended Care in Patients With Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis in Physical Therapy: Delphi Study on Needs and Preconditions.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a major public health concern. Despite existing evidence-based treatment options, the health care situation remains unsatisfactory. Digital care options, especially when combined with in-person sessions, seem to be promising. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the needs, preconditions, barriers, and facilitators of blended physical therapy for osteoarthritis. METHODS: This Delphi study consisted of interviews, an online questionnaire, and focus groups. Participants were physical therapists, patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis with or without experience in digital care, and stakeholders of the health care system. In the first phase, interviews were conducted with patients and physical therapists. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. The interviews focused on experiences with digital and blended care. Furthermore, needs, facilitators, and barriers were discussed. In the second phase, an online questionnaire and focus groups served the process to confirm the needs and collect preconditions. The online questionnaire contained statements drawn by the results of the interviews. Patients and physical therapists were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in one of the three focus groups including (1) patients; (2) physical therapists; and (3) a patient, a physical therapist, and stakeholders from the health care system. The focus groups were used to determine concordance with the results of the interviews and the online questionnaire. RESULTS: Nine physical therapists, seven patients, and six stakeholders confirmed that an increase of acceptance of the digital care part by physical therapists and patients is crucial. One of the most frequently mentioned facilitators was conducting regular in-person sessions. Physical therapists and patients concluded that blended physical therapy must be tailored to the patients' needs. Participants of the last focus group stated that the reimbursement of blended physical therapy needs to be clarified. CONCLUSIONS: Most importantly, it is necessary to strengthen the acceptance of patients and physical therapists toward digital care. Overall, for development and usage purposes, it is crucial to take the needs and preconditions into account. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023386; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00023386.

Smartphone-assisted training with education for patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (SmArt-E): study protocol for a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis are associated with functional limitations, pain and restrictions in quality of life and the ability to work. Furthermore, with growing prevalence, osteoarthritis is increasingly causing (in)direct costs. Guidelines recommend exercise therapy and education as primary treatment strategies. Available options for treatment based on physical activity promotion and lifestyle change are often insufficiently provided and used. In addition, the quality of current exercise programmes often does not meet the changing care needs of older people with comorbidities and exercise adherence is a challenge beyond personal physiotherapy. The main objective of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term (cost-)effectiveness of the SmArt-E programme in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain and physical functioning compared to usual care. METHODS: This study is designed as a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a target sample size of 330 patients. The intervention is based on the e-Exercise intervention from the Netherlands, consists of a training and education programme and is conducted as a blended care intervention over 12 months. We use an app to support independent training and the development of self-management skills. The primary and secondary hypotheses are that participants in the SmArt-E intervention will have less pain (numerical rating scale) and better physical functioning (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) compared to participants in the usual care group after 12 and 3 months. Other secondary outcomes are based on domains of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The study will be accompanied by a process evaluation. DISCUSSION: After a positive evaluation, SmArt-E can be offered in usual care, flexibly addressing different care situations. The desired sustainability and the support of the participants' behavioural change are initiated via the app through audio-visual contact with their physiotherapists. Furthermore, the app supports the repetition and consolidation of learned training and educational content. For people with osteoarthritis, the new form of care with proven effectiveness can lead to a reduction in underuse and misuse of care as well as contribute to a reduction in (in)direct costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00028477. Registered on August 10, 2022.

Development and feasibility of stratified primary care physiotherapy integrated with eHealth in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: results of a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Providing individualized care based on the context and preferences of the patient is important. Knowledge on both prognostic risk stratification and blended eHealth care in musculoskeletal conditions is increasing and seems promising. Stratification can be used to match patients to the most optimal content and intensity of treatment as well as mode of treatment delivery (i.e. face-to-face or blended with eHealth). However, research on the integration of stratified and blended eHealth care with corresponding matched treatment options for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints is lacking. METHODS: This study was a mixed methods study comprising the development of matched treatment options, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the developed Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach. In the first phase, three focus groups with physiotherapists and physiotherapy experts were conducted. The second phase investigated the feasibility (i.e. satisfaction, usability and experiences) of the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for both physiotherapists and patients in a multicenter single-arm convergent parallel mixed methods feasibility study. RESULTS: In the first phase, matched treatment options were developed for six patient subgroups. Recommendations for content and intensity of physiotherapy were matched to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool: low/medium/high risk). In addition, selection of mode of treatment delivery was matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (using the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist: yes/no). A paper-based workbook and e-Exercise app modules were developed as two different mode of treatment delivery options, to support physiotherapists. Feasibility was evaluated in the second phase. Physiotherapists and patients were mildly satisfied with the new approach. Usability of the physiotherapist dashboard to set up the e-Exercise app was considered 'OK' by physiotherapists. Patients considered the e-Exercise app to be of 'best imaginable' usability. The paper-based workbook was not used. CONCLUSION: Results of the focus groups led to the development of matched treatment options. Results of the feasibility study showed experiences with integrating stratified and blended eHealth care and have informed amendments to the Stratified Blended Physiotherapy approach for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints ready to use within a future cluster randomized trial.

Proof of concept and feasibility of a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: Regular physiotherapy with a physiotherapist experienced in the field is not feasible for many patients with haemophilia. We, therefore, developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with haemophilic arthropathy (HA) (e-Exercise HA), integrating face-to-face physiotherapy with a smartphone application. AIM: The aim of the study was to determine proof of concept of e- Exercise HA and to evaluate feasibility. METHODS: Proof of concept was evaluated by a single-case multiple baseline design. Physical activity (PA) was measured with an accelerometer during a baseline, intervention and post-intervention phase and analysed using visual inspection and a single case randomisation test. Changes in limitations in activities (Haemophilia Activities List [HAL]) and a General Perceived Effect (GPE) were evaluated between baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1) and 3 months post-intervention (T2) using Wilcoxson signed rank test. Feasibility was evaluated by the number of adverse events, attended sessions and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Nine patients with HA (90% severe, median age 57.5 (quartiles 50.5-63.3) and median HJHS 32 (quartiles 22-36)) were included. PA increased in two patients. HAL increased mean 15 (SD 9) points (p = .001) at T1, and decrease to mean +8 points (SD 7) (p = .012) at T2 compared to T0. At T1 and T2 8/9 participants scored a GPE > 3. Median 5 (range 4-7) face-to-face sessions were attended and a median 8 out of 12 information modules were viewed. No intervention-related bleeds were reported. CONCLUSION: A blended physiotherapy intervention is feasible for persons with HA and the first indication of the effectiveness of the intervention in decreasing limitations in activities was observed.

Patient Perspectives on Using a Smartphone App to Support Home-Based Exercise During Physical Therapy Treatment: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Home-based exercise is an important part of physical therapy treatment for patients with low back pain. However, treatment effectiveness depends heavily on patient adherence to home-based exercise recommendations. Smartphone apps designed to support home-based exercise have the potential to support adherence to exercise recommendations and possibly improve treatment effects. A better understanding of patient perspectives regarding the use of smartphone apps to support home-based exercise during physical therapy treatment can assist physical therapists with optimal use and implementation of these apps in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate patient perspectives on the acceptability, satisfaction, and performance of a smartphone app to support home-based exercise following recommendations from a physical therapist. METHODS: Using an interpretivist phenomenology approach, 9 patients (4 males and 5 females; aged 20-71 years) with nonspecific low back pain recruited from 2 primary care physical therapy practices were interviewed within 2 weeks after treatment ended. An interview guide was used for the interviews to ensure that different aspects of the patients' perspectives were discussed. The Physitrack smartphone app was used to support home-based exercise as part of treatment for all patients. Data were analyzed using the "Framework Method" to assist with interpretation of the data. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed 11 categories distributed among the 3 themes "acceptability," "satisfaction," and "performance." Patients were willing to accept the app as part of treatment when it was easy to use, when it benefited the patient, and when the physical therapist instructed the patient in its use. Satisfaction with the app was determined by users' perceived support from the app when exercising at home and the perceived increase in adherence. The video and text instructions, reminder functions, and self-monitor functions were considered the most important aspects for performance during treatment. The patients did not view the Physitrack app as a replacement for the physical therapist and relied on their therapist for instructions and support when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who use an app to support home-based exercise as part of treatment are accepting of the app when it is easy to use, when it benefits the patient, and when the therapist instructs the patient in its use. Physical therapists using an app to support home-based exercise can use the findings from this study to effectively support their patients when exercising at home during treatment.

The 3-Month Effectiveness of a Stratified Blended Physiotherapy Intervention in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient education, home-based exercise therapy, and advice on returning to normal activities are established physiotherapeutic treatment options for patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on health-related outcomes largely depends on patient self-management and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations. e-Exercise LBP is a recently developed stratified blended care intervention comprising a smartphone app integrated with face-to-face physiotherapy treatment. Following the promising effects of web-based applications on patients' self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations, it is hypothesized that e-Exercise LBP will improve patients' physical functioning. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy (e-Exercise LBP) on physical functioning in comparison with face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP. METHODS: The study design was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Patients with nonspecific LBP aged ≥18 years were asked to participate in the study. The patients were treated with either stratified blended physiotherapy or face-to-face physiotherapy. Both interventions were conducted according to the Dutch physiotherapy guidelines for nonspecific LBP. Blended physiotherapy was stratified according to the patients' risk of developing persistent LBP using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool. The primary outcome was physical functioning (Oswestry Disability Index, range 0-100). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, fear-avoidance beliefs, and self-reported adherence. Measurements were taken at baseline and at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Both the stratified blended physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) and the face-to-face physiotherapy group (104/208, 50%) had improved clinically relevant and statistically significant physical functioning; however, there was no statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group difference (mean difference -1.96, 95% CI -4.47 to 0.55). For the secondary outcomes, stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in fear-avoidance beliefs and self-reported adherence. In patients with a high risk of developing persistent LBP (13/208, 6.3%), stratified blended physiotherapy showed statistically significant between-group differences in physical functioning (mean difference -16.39, 95% CI -27.98 to -4.79) and several secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise LBP is not more effective than face-to-face physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific LBP in improving physical functioning in the short term. For both stratified blended physiotherapy and face-to-face physiotherapy, within-group improvements were clinically relevant. To be able to decide whether e-Exercise LBP should be implemented in daily physiotherapy practice, future research should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness and determine which patients benefit most from stratified blended physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry 94074203; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN94074203. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3174-z.

Feasibility of a stratified blended physiotherapy intervention for patients with non-specific low back pain: a mixed methods study.

Introduction: Integrating web-based or mobile components and face-to-face components within a treatment process is called blended care. As part of the participatory development of a blended physiotherapeutic intervention for patients with low back pain (e-Exercise LBP), a proof of concept study was carried out and showed promising results.Objective: To investigate the feasibility of the e-Exercise LBP prototype for patients and physiotherapists to improve the intervention.Methods: A mixed methods study was executed, embedded in the development phase of e-Exercise LBP. 21 physiotherapists treated 41 patients with e-Exercise LBP. Quantitative data consisted of: patients' satisfaction on a five-point Likert Scale; patients' and physiotherapists' experienced usability of the web-based application (System Usability Scale) and; patients' experiences with e-Exercise LBP (closed-ended questions and statements related to the elements and goals of e-Exercise LBP). Semi-structured interviews about experiences with e-Exercise LBP were conducted with seven patients and seven physiotherapists. Qualitative data were analyzed by a phenomenological approach. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.Results: Patients were satisfied with e-Exercise LBP (mean: 4.0; SD:0.8; range: extreme dissatisfaction (1)-extreme satisfaction (5)). Usability of the web-based application was acceptable (patients: mean: 73.2 (SD:16.3); physiotherapists: mean: 63.3 (SD:12.0); range: 0-100). Interviews revealed that physiotherapists' training is essential to successfully integrate the web-based application and face-to-face sessions within physiotherapy treatment. Also, patients addressed the need of reminder messages to support long-term (exercise) adherence.Conclusion: e-Exercise LBP appeared to be feasible. However, various prerequisites and points of improvement were mentioned to improve physiotherapists' training and the prototype.

Validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Dutch STarT MSK tool in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. METHODS: Physiotherapists included patients with musculoskeletal pain, aged 18 years or older. Patients completed a questionnaire at baseline and follow-up at 5 days and 3 months, respectively. Construct validity was assessed by comparing scores of STarT MSK items with reference questionnaires. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to test predefined hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating quadratic-weighted kappa coefficients for overall STarT MSK tool scores (range 0-12) and prognostic subgroups (low, medium and high risk). Predictive validity was assessed by calculating relative risk ratios for moderate risk and high risk, both compared with low risk, in their ability to predict persisting disability at 3 months. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, 74 patients (52.1%) were categorised as low risk, 64 (45.1%) as medium risk and 4 (2.8%) as high risk. For construct validity, nine of the eleven predefined hypotheses were confirmed. For test-retest reliability, kappa coefficients for the overall tool scores and prognostic subgroups were 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. For predictive validity, relative risk ratios for persisting disability were 2.19 (95% CI: 1.10-4.38) for the medium-risk group and 7.30 (95% CI: 4.11-12.98) for the high-risk group. CONCLUSION: The Dutch STarT MSK tool showed a sufficient to good validity and reliability in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care physiotherapy. The sample size for high-risk patients was small (n = 4), which may limit the generalisability of findings for this group. An external validation study with a larger sample of high-risk patients (≥50) is recommended.

Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient's risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient's suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient's risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient's suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. DISCUSSION: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL8249 . Officially registered since 27 December 2019. Date of first enrollment: 30 September 2020. Study status: ongoing, data collection.

Movement behaviour patterns in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in the physical therapy setting: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is one of the most common chronic joint diseases, mostly affecting the knee or hip through pain, joint stiffness and decreased physical functioning in daily life. Regular physical activity (PA) can help preserve and improve physical functioning and reduce pain in patients with osteoarthritis. Interventions aiming to improve movement behaviour can be optimized by tailoring them to a patients' starting point; their current movement behaviour. Movement behaviour needs to be assessed in its full complexity, and therefore a multidimensional description is needed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify subgroups based on movement behaviour patterns in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are eligible for a PA intervention. Second, differences between subgroups regarding Body Mass Index, sex, age, physical functioning, comorbidities, fatigue and pain were determined between subgroups. METHODS: Baseline data of the clinical trial 'e-Exercise Osteoarthritis', collected in Dutch primary care physical therapy practices were analysed. Movement behaviour was assessed with ActiGraph GT3X and GT3X+ accelerometers. Groups with similar patterns were identified using a hierarchical cluster analysis, including six clustering variables indicating total time in and distribution of PA and sedentary behaviours. Differences in clinical characteristics between groups were assessed via Kruskall Wallis and Chi2 tests. RESULTS: Accelerometer data, including all daily activities during 3 to 5 subsequent days, of 182 patients (average age 63 years) with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis were analysed. Four patterns were identified: inactive & sedentary, prolonged sedentary, light active and active. Physical functioning was less impaired in the group with the active pattern compared to the inactive & sedentary pattern. The group with the prolonged sedentary pattern experienced lower levels of pain and fatigue and higher levels of physical functioning compared to the light active and compared to the inactive & sedentary. CONCLUSIONS: Four subgroups with substantially different movement behaviour patterns and clinical characteristics can be identified in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Knowledge about these subgroups can be used to personalize future movement behaviour interventions for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch clinical trial registration number of e-Exercise Osteoarthritis: NTR4224 .

A Blended Physiotherapy Intervention for Persons With Hemophilic Arthropathy: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Joint bleeds are the hallmark of hemophilia, leading to a painful arthritic condition called as hemophilic arthropathy (HA). Exercise programs are frequently used to improve the physical functioning in persons with HA. As hemophilia is a rare disease, there are not many physiotherapists who are experienced in the field of hemophilia, and regular physiotherapy sessions with an experienced physiotherapist in the field of hemophilia are not feasible for persons with HA. Blended care is an innovative intervention that can support persons with HA at home to perform the advised physical activities and exercises and provide self-management information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with HA. METHODS: The blended physiotherapy intervention, namely, e-Exercise HA was developed by cocreation with physiotherapists, persons with HA, software developers, and researchers. The content of e-Exercise HA was compiled using the first 3 steps of the Center for eHealth Research roadmap model (ie, contextual inquiry, value specification, and design), including people with experience in the development of previous blended physiotherapy interventions, a literature search, and focus groups. RESULTS: A 12-week blended intervention was developed, integrating face-to-face physiotherapy sessions with a web-based app. The intervention consists of information modules for persons with HA and information modules for physiotherapists, a graded activity program using a self-chosen activity, and personalized video-supported exercises. The information modules consist of text blocks, videos, and reflective questions. The patients can receive pop-ups as reminders and give feedback on the performance of the prescribed activities. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we developed a blended physiotherapy intervention for persons with HA, which consists of information modules, a graded activity program, and personalized video-supported exercises.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients' physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. METHODS: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24 months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN94074203. Registered 20 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Shifts in patients' question-asking behaviour between 2007 and 2016: An observational study of video-recorded general practice consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into patient participation in general practice by examining if and how patients' question-asking behaviour has changed over the years (2007-2016). METHODS: A random set of real-life video-recorded consultations collected in 2015-2016 (n = 437) was observed and compared with that of a former study in 2007-2008 (n = 533). Patients' question-asking behaviour was coded using an adapted RIAS protocol containing six categories: medical condition/therapeutic regimen; psychosocial; social context; lifestyle; ask for opinion doctor; practical. GPs and patients completed questionnaires about their background characteristics. Data were analysed using multi-level analysis. RESULTS: Patients asked fewer questions in 2016 than in 2007. The type of question-asking behaviour changed significantly: in particular medical questions decreased while practical questions increased. Less educated patients asked significantly more practical questions than higher educated patients. CONCLUSION: Contrary to our expectations, patients' question-asking has decreased in 2016 compared to 2007, while the average consultation length has increased. The type of questions shifted from medical to practical, especially in less educated patients. It seems that GPs' professional role has expanded over time, since patients nowadays ask their GP more non-medical questions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs probably could continue facilitating patient involvement by more frequently using partnership-building and supportive communication.

Physiotherapists' experiences with a blended osteoarthritis intervention: a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: E-Exercise is an effective 12-week blended intervention consisting of around five face-to-face physiotherapy sessions and a web-based application for patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. In order to facilitate effective implementation of e-Exercise, this study aims to identify physiotherapists' experiences and determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design embedded in a randomized controlled trial comparing e-Exercise with usual physiotherapy in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis. Usage of e-Exercise was based on recruitment rates of 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise and objective web-based application usage data. Experiences and determinants related to e-Exercise usage were investigated with a questionnaire and clarified with semi-structured interviews. Results: Of the 123 physiotherapists allocated to e-Exercise, 54 recruited more than one eligible patient, of whom 10 physiotherapists continued using e-Exercise after the study period. Physiotherapists had mixed experiences with e-Exercise. Determinants related to intervention usage were appropriateness, added value, time, workload, professional autonomy, environmental factors, and financial consequences. Physiotherapists recommended to improve the ability to tailor e-Exercise to the individual needs of the patient patients' individual needs. Discussion: Determinants related to the usage of e-Exercise provided valuable information for the implementation of e-Exercise on broader scale. Most importantly, the flexibility of e-Exercise needs to be improved. Next, there is a need for education on how to integrate an online program within physiotherapy.

Development of a Checklist to Assist Physiotherapists in Determination of Patients' Suitability for a Blended Treatment.

Background: The integration of digital applications within health care is called blended care. Introduction: Despite its potential, physiotherapists experience difficulty in determining which patients are suitable for blended care. This study aimed to develop a checklist to support physiotherapists while setting up a blended treatment. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which patient characteristics predict patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy and which patient characteristics need to be taken into account while determining the ratio between therapeutic guidance and a digital application. Methods: A scoping review was conducted consisting of (1) literature search in PubMed and PEDro up to December 2017: studies were eligible if they focused on blended physiotherapy consisting of contact at least twice with a physiotherapist complemented by a digital application, and characteristics related to patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy were extracted and categorized in themes; (2) a checklist item for each theme formulated by the authors, which resulted in a first version of the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist; and (3) expert opinion and feedback on clinical relevance by six experts. The checklist was adapted accordingly. Results: The final Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist consists of eight items: motivation, safety, equipment, digital skills, health literacy, self-management, time, and financial factors. Discussion: The next step is to investigate the feasibility and predictive validity of the checklist, that is, whether this checklist is actually able to predict patients' suitability for blended physiotherapy. Conclusions: This study provides the final version of the Dutch Blended Physiotherapy Checklist, which is supposed to guide physiotherapists in their clinical reasoning process while setting up a personalized, blended physiotherapy treatment.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of exercise to improve cognitive performance in patients with stable glioma: a proof of concept.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioma often suffer from cognitive deficits. Physical exercise has been effective in ameliorating cognitive deficits in older adults and neurological patients. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) explored the possible impact of an exercise intervention, designed to improve cognitive functioning in glioma patients, regarding cognitive test performance and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Thirty-four clinically stable patients with World Health Organization grades II/III glioma were randomized to a home-based remotely coached exercise group or an active control group. Patients exercised 3 times per week for 20-45 minutes, with moderate to vigorous intensity, during 6 months. At baseline and immediate follow-up, cognitive performance and PROs were assessed with neuropsychological tests and questionnaires, respectively. Linear regression analyses were used to estimate effect sizes of potential between-group differences in cognitive performance and PROs at 6 months. RESULTS: The exercise group (n = 21) had small- to medium-sized better follow-up scores than the control group (n = 11) on several measures of attention and information processing speed, verbal memory, and executive function, whereas the control group showed a slightly better score on a measure of sustained selective attention. The exercise group also demonstrated small- to medium-sized better outcomes on measures of self-reported cognitive symptoms, fatigue, sleep, mood, and mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: This small exploratory RCT in glioma patients provides a proof of concept with respect to improvement of cognitive functioning and PROs after aerobic exercise, and warrants larger exercise trials in brain tumor patients.

To what degree do patients actively choose their healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP? A video observation study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries in Europe have implemented managed competition and patient choice during the last decade. With the introduction of managed competition, health insurers also became an important stakeholder. They purchase services on behalf of their customers and are allowed to contract healthcare providers selectively. It has, therefore, become increasingly important to take one's insurance into account when choosing a provider. There is little evidence that patients make active choices in the way that policymakers assume they do. This research aims to investigate, firstly, the role of patients in choosing a healthcare provider at the point of referral, then the role of the GP and, finally, the influence of the health insurer/insurance policies within this process. METHODS: We videotaped a series of everyday consultations between Dutch GPs and their patients during 2015 and 2016. In 117 of these consultations, with 28 GPs, the patient was referred to another healthcare provider. These consultations were coded by three observers using an observation protocol which assessed the role of the patient, GP, and the influence of the health insurer during the referral. RESULTS: Patients were divided into three groups: patients with little or no input, patients with some input, and those with a lot of input. Just over half of the patients (56%) seemed to have some, or a lot of, input into the choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. In addition, in almost half of the consultations (47%), GPs inquired about their patients' preferences regarding a healthcare provider. Topics regarding the health insurance or insurance policy of a patient were rarely (14%) discussed at the point of referral. CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the patients appear to have some, or a lot of, input into their choice of a healthcare provider at the point of referral by their GP. However, the remainder of the patients had little or no input. If more patient choice continues to be an important aim for policy makers, patients should be encouraged to actively choose the healthcare provider who best fits their needs and preferences.