A randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions

Comparative effect of two educational videos on self-efficacy and kinesiophobia in people with knee osteoarthritis: an online randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare change in self-efficacy for managing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain and kinesiophobia after watching an educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse with a video based on a disease and impairment discourse.

DESIGN

Two-arm randomised controlled trial with participants aged ≥45 years with knee pain (n = 589). Participants completed both baseline and follow-up outcomes and watched one randomly-allocated video (12-minute duration) during one 30-45-minute session within a single online survey. The experimental video presented evidence-based knee OA information using design and language that aimed to empower people and focus on activity participation to manage OA, while the control video presented similar information but with a disease and impairment focus. Primary outcome measures were Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale pain subscale (range 0-10) and Brief Fear of Movement Scale for OA (range 6-24). Secondary outcomes were expectations about prognosis and physical activity benefits, perceived importance and motivation to be physically active, knee OA knowledge, hopefulness for the future, level of concern and perceived need for surgery.

RESULTS

Compared to control (n = 293), the experimental group (n = 296) showed improved self-efficacy for managing OA pain (mean difference 0.4 [95%CI 0.2, 0.6] units) and reduced kinesiophobia (1.6 [1.1, 2.0] units). The experimental group also demonstrated greater improvements in all secondary outcomes apart from hopefulness, which was high in both groups.

CONCLUSION

An educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse improved pain self-efficacy and reduced kinesiophobia in people with knee OA more than a video based on a disease and impairment discourse.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration NCT05156216, Universal trial number U1111-1269-6143.

Defining Growing Pains: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Up to one third of children may be diagnosed with growing pains, but considerable uncertainty surrounds how to make this diagnosis. The objective of this study was to detail the definitions of growing pains in the medical literature.

METHODS

Scoping review with 8 electronic databases and 6 diagnostic classification systems searched from their inception to January 2021. The study selection included peer-reviewed articles or theses referring to "growing pain(s)" or "growth pain(s)" in relation to children or adolescents. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

We included 145 studies and 2 diagnostic systems (ICD-10 and SNOMED). Definition characteristics were grouped into 8 categories: pain location, age of onset, pain pattern, pain trajectory, pain types and risk factors, relationship to activity, severity and functional impact, and physical examination and investigations. There was extremely poor consensus between studies as to the basis for a diagnosis of growing pains. The most consistent component was lower limb pain, which was mentioned in 50% of sources. Pain in the evening or night (48%), episodic or recurrent course (42%), normal physical assessment (35%), and bilateral pain (31%) were the only other components to be mentioned in more than 30% of articles. Notably, more than 80% of studies made no reference to age of onset in their definition, and 93% did not refer to growth. Limitations of this study are that the included studies were not specifically designed to define growing pains.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clarity in the medical research literature regarding what defines growing pain. Clinicians should be wary of relying on the diagnosis to direct treatment decisions.