Is a model of stratified exercise therapy by physical therapists in primary care feasible in patients with knee osteoarthritis? : a mixed methods study

Primary care-based models of care for osteoarthritis; a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the extent, nature, characteristics, and impact of primary care-based models of care (MoCs) for osteoarthritis (OA) that have been developed and/or evaluated.

DESIGN

Six electronic databases were searched from 2010 to May 2022. Relevant data were extracted and collated for narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies pertaining to 37 discrete MoCs from 13 countries were included, of which 23 (62%) could be classified as OA management programmes (OAMPs) comprising a self-management intervention to be delivered as a discrete package. Four models (11%) focussed on enhancing the initial consultation between a patient presenting with OA at the first point of contact into a local health system and the clinician. Emphasis was placed on educational training for general practitioners (GPs) and allied healthcare professionals delivering this initial consultation. The remaining 10 MoCs (27%) detailed integrated care pathways of onward referral to specialist secondary orthopaedic and rheumatology care within local healthcare systems. The majority (35/37; 95%) were developed in high-income countries and 32/37 (87%) targeted hip/and or knee OA. Frequently identified model components included GP-led care, referral to primary care services and multidisciplinary care. The models were predominantly 'one-size fits all' and lacked individualised care approaches. A minority of MoCs, 5/37 (14%) were developed using underlying frameworks, three (8%) of which incorporated behaviour change theories, while 13/37 (35%) incorporated provider training. Thirty-four of the 37 models (92%) were evaluated. Outcome domains most frequently reported included clinical outcomes, followed by system- and provider-level outcomes. While there was evidence of improved quality of OA care associated with the models, effects on clinical outcomes were mixed.

CONCLUSION

There are emerging efforts internationally to develop evidence-based models focused on non-surgical primary care OA management. Notwithstanding variations in healthcare systems and resources, future research should focus on model development alignment with implementation science frameworks and theories, key stakeholder involvement including patient and public representation, provision of training and education for providers, treatment individualisation, integration and coordination of services across the care continuum and incorporation of behaviour change strategies to foster long-term adherence and self-management.

Prehabilitation before total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review on the use and efficacy of stratified care

BACKGROUND

Preoperative rehabilitation (hereafter called "prehabilitation") has been proposed as a potentially effective treatment to target preoperative risk factors to prevent insufficient outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess whether previous clinical trials of non-surgical, non-pharmacological prehabilitation in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) awaiting TKA focused on specific clinical phenotypes or specific individual characteristics and whether the content of the prehabilitation was stratified accordingly. Second, we aimed to summarize and compare the long-term effects of stratified and non-stratified care on pain, satisfaction, function and quality of life.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase was performed. All relevant articles published up to April 19, 2021 reporting "(randomized controlled) clinical trials or prospective cohort studies" (S) related to the key words "total knee arthroplasty" (P), "preoperative conservative interventions" (I), "pain, function, quality of life and/or satisfaction" (O) were included.

RESULTS

After screening 3498 potentially eligible records, 18 studies were assessed for risk of bias. Twelve studies had low, 2 moderate, 3 serious, and one high risk of bias. The latter study was excluded, resulting in 17 included studies. Five studies investigated a"stratified prehabilitation care" and 12 "non-stratified prehabilitation care". Stratified prehabilitation in 4 studies meant that the study sample was chosen considering a predefined intervention, and in the fifth study, the prehabilitation was stratified to individuals' needs. No direct comparison between the 2 approaches was possible. We found weak evidence for a positive effect of biopsychosocial prehabilitation compared to no prehabilitation on function (stratified studies) and pain neuroscience education prehabilitation compared to biomedical education on satisfaction (non-stratified studies) at 6 months post-TKA. We found strong evidence for positive effects of exercise prehabilitation compared to no prehabilitation on pain at 6 months and on function at 12 months post-TKA (non-stratified studies).

CONCLUSION

More research is needed of stratified prehabilitation care focusing on individual characteristics in people with KOA awaiting TKA.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

This systematic review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO on March 22, 2021 (no. CRD42021221098).

Patients' and clinicians' experiences with stratified exercise therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a qualitative study

Background

We have developed a model of stratified exercise therapy that distinguishes three knee osteoarthritis (OA) subgroups (‘high muscle strength subgroup’, ‘low muscle strength subgroup’, ‘obesity subgroup’), which are provided subgroup-specific exercise therapy (supplemented by a dietary intervention for the ‘obesity subgroup’). In a large clinical trial, this intervention was found to be no more effective than usual exercise therapy. The present qualitative study aimed to explore experiences from users of this intervention, in order to identify possible improvements.

Methods

Qualitative research design embedded within a cluster randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting. A random sample from the experimental arm (i.e., 15 patients, 11 physiotherapists and 5 dieticians) was interviewed on their experiences with receiving or applying the intervention. Qualitative data from these semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed.

Results

We identified four themes: one theme regarding the positive experiences with the intervention and three themes regarding perceived barriers. Although users from all 3 perspectives (patients, physiotherapists and dieticians) generally perceived the intervention as having added value, we also identified several barriers, especially for the ‘obesity subgroup’. In this ‘obesity subgroup’, physiotherapists perceived obesity as difficult to address, dieticians reported that more consultations are needed to reach sustainable weight loss and both physiotherapists and dieticians reported a lack of interprofessional collaboration. In the ‘high muscle strength subgroup’, the low number of supervised sessions was perceived as a barrier by some patients and physiotherapists, but as a facilitator by others. A final theme addressed barriers to knee OA treatment in general, with lack of motivation as the most prominent of these.

Conclusion

Our qualitative study revealed a number of barriers to effective application of the stratified exercise therapy, especially for the ‘obesity subgroup’. Based on these barriers, the intervention and its implementation could possibly be improved. Moreover, these barriers are likely to account at least partly for the lack of superiority over usual exercise therapy.

Trial registration

The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR): NL7463 (date of registration: 8 January 2019).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05496-2.

Barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare professionals for implementing lifestyle interventions in patients with osteoarthritis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of barriers and facilitators that healthcare professionals (HCPs) perceive regarding the implementation of lifestyle interventions (LIs) in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

The databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to January 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary research articles with a quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods design were eligible for inclusion if they reported: (1) perceptions of primary and/or secondary HCPs (population); (2) on implementing LIs with physical activity and/or weight management as key components (concept) and (3) on conservative management of hip and/or knee OA (context). Articles not published in English, German or Dutch were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Barriers and facilitators were extracted by two researchers independently. Subsequently, the extracted factors were linked to a framework based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases checklist.

RESULTS

Thirty-six articles were included. In total, 809 factors were extracted and subdivided into nine domains. The extracted barriers were mostly related to non-optimal interdisciplinary collaboration, patients' negative attitude towards LIs, patients' low health literacy and HCPs' lack of knowledge and skills around LIs or promoting behavioural change. The extracted facilitators were mostly related to good interdisciplinary collaboration, a positive perception of HCPs' own role in implementing LIs, the content or structure of LIs and HCPs' positive attitude towards LIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple individual and environmental factors influence the implementation of LIs by HCPs in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The resulting overview of barriers and facilitators can guide future research on the implementation of LIs within OA care. To investigate whether factor frequency is related to the relevance of each domain, further research should assess the relative importance of the identified factors involving all relevant disciplines of primary and secondary HCPs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019129348.

Construct validity of the OCTOPuS stratification algorithm for allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis into subgroups

BACKGROUND

We recently developed a model of stratified exercise therapy, consisting of (i) a stratification algorithm allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) into one of the three subgroups ('high muscle strength subgroup' representing a post-traumatic phenotype, 'low muscle strength subgroup' representing an age-induced phenotype, and 'obesity subgroup' representing a metabolic phenotype) and (ii) subgroup-specific exercise therapy. In the present study, we aimed to test the construct validity of this algorithm.

METHODS

Data from five studies (four exercise therapy trial cohorts and one cross-sectional cohort) were used to test the construct validity of our algorithm by 63 a priori formulated hypotheses regarding three research questions: (i) are the proportions of patients in each subgroup similar across cohorts? (15 hypotheses); (ii) are the characteristics of each of the subgroups in line with their proposed underlying phenotypes? (30 hypotheses); (iii) are the effects of usual exercise therapy in the 3 subgroups in line with the proposed effect sizes? (18 hypotheses).

RESULTS

Baseline data from a total of 1211 patients with knee OA were analyzed for the first and second research question, and follow-up data from 584 patients who were part of an exercise therapy arm within a trial for the third research question. In total, the vast majority (73%) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Regarding our first research question, we found similar proportions in each of the three subgroups across cohorts, especially for three cohorts. Regarding our second research question, subgroup characteristics were almost completely in line with the proposed underlying phenotypes. Regarding our third research question, usual exercise therapy resulted in similar, medium to large effect sizes for knee pain and physical function for all three subgroups.

CONCLUSION

We found mixed results regarding the construct validity of our stratification algorithm. On the one hand, it is a valid instrument to consistently allocate patients into subgroups that aligned our hypotheses. On the other hand, in contrast to our hypotheses, subgroups did not differ substantially in effects of usual exercise therapy. An ongoing trial will assess whether this algorithm accompanied by subgroup-specific exercise therapy improves clinical and economic outcomes.

Stratified exercise therapy compared with usual care by physical therapists in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial protocol (OCTOPuS study)

Objectives

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup‐specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost‐)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, “nonstratified” exercise therapy.

Methods

A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a “high muscle strength subgroup,” “low muscle strength subgroup,” or “obesity subgroup” and (b) subgroup‐specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3‐month (primary endpoint), 6‐month (questionnaires only), and 12‐month follow‐up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention‐to‐treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed.

Conclusion

This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost‐effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.