1
|
Holden MA, Callaghan M, Felson D, Birrell F, Nicholls E, Jowett S, Kigozi J, McBeth J, Borrelli B, Jinks C, Foster NE, Dziedzic K, Mallen C, Ingram C, Sutton A, Lawton S, Halliday N, Hartshorne L, Williams H, Browell R, Hudson H, Marshall M, Sowden G, Herron D, Asamane E, Peat G. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of bracing in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis management: protocol for a multicentre, primary care, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e048196. [PMID: 33771832 PMCID: PMC8006841 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2021] [Revised: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Brace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION North West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN28555470.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melanie A Holden
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Michael Callaghan
- Faculty of Health, Psychology & Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, Greater Manchester, UK
| | - David Felson
- Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Research in OsteoArthritis Manchester (ROAM), Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Fraser Birrell
- Medical Research Council Versus Arthritis Centre for Integrated Research into Musculoskeletal Ageing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Elaine Nicholls
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
- Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Sue Jowett
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - J Kigozi
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - John McBeth
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Belinda Borrelli
- Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- School of Health Sciences, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Clare Jinks
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Nadine E Foster
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Krysia Dziedzic
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Christian Mallen
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Carol Ingram
- Research User Group, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Alan Sutton
- Research User Group, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Sarah Lawton
- Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Nicola Halliday
- Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Liz Hartshorne
- Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Helen Williams
- Research in OsteoArthritis Manchester (ROAM), Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institute of Inflammation and Repair, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rachel Browell
- Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, Tyne and Wear, UK
| | - Hannah Hudson
- Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Michelle Marshall
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Gail Sowden
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Dan Herron
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Evans Asamane
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - George Peat
- Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith RD, McHugh GA, Quicke JG, Dziedzic KS, Healey EL. Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 2021; 19:473-483. [PMID: 33683799 DOI: 10.1002/msc.1540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Revised: 01/12/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study assessed the measurement properties of two commonly used self-report physical activity (PA) measures: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Physical Activity Scale for the elderly (PASE) in adults with osteoarthritis. METHODS Secondary analysis of the MOSAICS cluster randomised controlled trial baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, total scores and subdomains of the IPAQ-SF and PASE were compared. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were used to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standard responsive measurement (SRM) and response ratio (RR). RESULTS There was moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the total IPAQ-SF scores (score ranges 0-16,398) and the total PASE scores (score ranges 0-400). Subdomain correlations were also moderate (ranges 0.39-0.57). The PASE showed greater reliability compared to the IPAQ-SF (ICC = 0.68; 0.61-0.74 95% CI and ICC = 0.64; 0.55-0.72, respectively). Measurement errors in both measures were large: PASE SEM = 46.7, SDC = 129.6 and 95% LoA ranges = -117 to 136, the IPAQ-SF SEM = 3532.2 METS-1 min-1 week , SDC = 9790.8 and 95% LoA ranges = -5222 to 5597. Responsiveness was poor: ES -0.14 and -0.16, SRM -0.21 and -0.21, and RR 0.12 and 0.09 for the IPAQ-SF and PASE, respectively. DISCUSSION The IPAQ-SF and PASE appear limited in reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these limitations, particularly when comparing different levels of PA and monitoring PA levels changes over time in those with osteoarthritis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R D Smith
- School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - G A McHugh
- School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - J G Quicke
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - K S Dziedzic
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| | - E L Healey
- School of Medicine, Primary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Morden A, Ong BN, Jinks C, Healey E, Finney A, Dziedzic KS. Resistance or appropriation? : Uptake of exercise after a nurse-led intervention to promote self-management for osteoarthritis. Health (London) 2020; 26:221-243. [PMID: 32486866 PMCID: PMC8928233 DOI: 10.1177/1363459320925879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
The philosophical underpinning of trials of complex interventions is critiqued for not taking into account causal mechanisms that influence potential outcomes. In this article, we draw from in-depth interviews (with practice nurses and patients) and observations of practice meetings and consultations to investigate the outcomes of a complex intervention to promote self-management (in particular exercise) for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. We argue that nurses interpreted the intervention as underpinned by the need to educate rather than work with patients, and, drawing from Habermasian theory, we argue that expert medicalised knowledge (system) clashed with lay ‘lifeworld’ prerogatives in an uneven communicative arena (the consultation). In turn, the advice and instructions given to patients were not always commensurate with their ‘lifeworld’. Consequently, patients struggled to embed exercise routines into their daily lives for reasons of unsuitable locality, sense-making that ‘home’ was an inappropriate place to exercise and using embodied knowledge to test the efficacy of exercise on pain. We conclude by arguing that using Habermasian theory helped to understand reasons why the trial failed to increase exercise levels. Our findings suggest that communication styles influence the outcomes of self-management interventions, reinforce the utility of theoretically informed qualitative research embedded within trials to improve conduct and outcomes and indicate incorporating perspectives from human geography can enhance Habermas-informed research and theorising.
Collapse
|
4
|
Beedholm K, Frederiksen K. Patient involvement and institutional logics: A discussion paper. Nurs Philos 2018; 20:e12234. [PMID: 30592122 DOI: 10.1111/nup.12234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2017] [Revised: 11/26/2018] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
The research into patient involvement is seldom concerned with the significance of cultural and structural factors. In this discussion paper, we illustrate our considerations on some of the challenges in implementing the ideal of patient involvement by showing how such factors take part in shaping the ways in which the intentions to involve patients are converted to practical interventions. The aim was to contribute to the approach dealing with contextual and structural factors of significance for patient involvement. With the idea of "institutional logics," borrowed from the Danish scholar, Erik Riiskjaer, we first demonstrate, with examples from our own research, how patient involvement is interpreted differently within the different logics. Then, we show how the different interpretations of patient involvement meet and conflict in mutual competition as the ideals are sought to be converted to practical interventions. At last, we argue that an adequate theoretical model for the development in the future health care system should be expanded with a "patient logic."
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kirsten Beedholm
- Department of Public Health, Section for Nursing, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
| | - Kirsten Frederiksen
- Department of Public Health, Section for Nursing, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
McCormick AJ, Becker MJ, Grabowski TJ. Involving People with Memory Loss in the Development of a Patient Handbook: A Strengths-Based Approach. SOCIAL WORK 2018; 63:357-366. [PMID: 30137585 DOI: 10.1093/sw/swy043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2017] [Accepted: 05/25/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
A memory clinic used two key approaches in developing a patient and family handbook: partnership with people with memory loss and strengths-based social work practice. Social worker coeditors of the handbook intentionally sought guidance from people with mild to moderate memory loss regarding handbook content, design, and overall tone. A focus group, three sessions of a review group, e-mails, and personal interviews were used to solicit and review input from participants. The editors also incorporated content contributions in the form of essays, quotations, and an original poem from people with memory loss, alongside contributions from clinic staff, university faculty, and community service providers. People with memory loss provided input in five areas: response to a new diagnosis, coping with memory loss, messages to other newly diagnosed people and health care professionals, available community resources, and recommendations for handbook design. The development process reinforced a key message of the handbook: People with memory loss exhibit ongoing strengths, which help them participate in life. The process also ensured that the handbook content and design would be relevant and applicable to its users. The handbook is now regularly distributed as a primary patient education tool in the memory clinic and community programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew J McCormick
- Andrew J. McCormick, PhD, MSW, is a retired social worker, 10208 NE 23rd Street, Bellevue, WA 98004; e-mail: . Marigrace J. Becker, MSW, is a social worker and Thomas J. Grabowski, MD, is director, UW Medicine, Memory, and Brain Wellness Center, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Marigrace J Becker
- Andrew J. McCormick, PhD, MSW, is a retired social worker, 10208 NE 23rd Street, Bellevue, WA 98004; e-mail: . Marigrace J. Becker, MSW, is a social worker and Thomas J. Grabowski, MD, is director, UW Medicine, Memory, and Brain Wellness Center, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle
| | - Thomas J Grabowski
- Andrew J. McCormick, PhD, MSW, is a retired social worker, 10208 NE 23rd Street, Bellevue, WA 98004; e-mail: . Marigrace J. Becker, MSW, is a social worker and Thomas J. Grabowski, MD, is director, UW Medicine, Memory, and Brain Wellness Center, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hay E, Dziedzic K, Foster N, Peat G, van der Windt D, Bartlam B, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, Edwards J, Healey E, Holden M, Hughes R, Jinks C, Jordan K, Jowett S, Lewis M, Mallen C, Morden A, Nicholls E, Ong BN, Porcheret M, Wulff J, Kigozi J, Oppong R, Paskins Z, Croft P. Optimal primary care management of clinical osteoarthritis and joint pain in older people: a mixed-methods programme of systematic reviews, observational and qualitative studies, and randomised controlled trials. PROGRAMME GRANTS FOR APPLIED RESEARCH 2018. [DOI: 10.3310/pgfar06040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common long-term condition managed in UK general practice. However, care is suboptimal despite evidence that primary care and community-based interventions can reduce OA pain and disability.ObjectivesThe overall aim was to improve primary care management of OA and the health of patients with OA. Four parallel linked workstreams aimed to (1) develop a health economic decision model for estimating the potential for cost-effective delivery of primary care OA interventions to improve population health, (2) develop and evaluate new health-care models for delivery of core treatments and support for self-management among primary care consulters with OA, and to investigate prioritisation and implementation of OA care among the public, patients, doctors, health-care professionals and NHS trusts, (3) determine the effectiveness of strategies to optimise specific components of core OA treatment using the example of exercise and (4) investigate the effect of interventions to tackle barriers to core OA treatment, using the example of comorbid anxiety and depression in persons with OA.Data sourcesThe North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project database, held by Keele University, was the source of data for secondary analyses in workstream 1.MethodsWorkstream 1 used meta-analysis and synthesis of published evidence about effectiveness of primary care treatments, combined with secondary analysis of existing longitudinal population-based cohort data, to identify predictors of poor long-term outcome (prognostic factors) and design a health economic decision model to estimate cost-effectiveness of different hypothetical strategies for implementing optimal primary care for patients with OA. Workstream 2 used mixed methods to (1) develop and test a ‘model OA consultation’ for primary care health-care professionals (qualitative interviews, consensus, training and evaluation) and (2) evaluate the combined effect of a computerised ‘pop-up’ guideline for general practitioners (GPs) in the consultation and implementing the model OA consultation on practice and patient outcomes (parallel group intervention study). Workstream 3 developed and investigated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) how to optimise the effect of exercise in persons with knee OA by tailoring it to the individual and improving adherence. Workstream 4 developed and investigated in a cluster RCT the extent to which screening patients for comorbid anxiety and depression can improve OA outcomes. Public and patient involvement included proposal development, project steering and analysis. An OA forum involved public, patient, health professional, social care and researcher representatives to debate the results and formulate proposals for wider implementation and dissemination.ResultsThis programme provides evidence (1) that economic modelling can be used in OA to extrapolate findings of cost-effectiveness beyond the short-term outcomes of clinical trials, (2) about ways of implementing support for self-management and models of optimal primary care informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, including the beneficial effects of training in a model OA consultation on GP behaviour and of pop-up screens in GP consultations on the quality of prescribing, (3) against adding enhanced interventions to current effective physiotherapy-led exercise for knee OA and (4) against screening for anxiety and depression in patients with musculoskeletal pain as an addition to current best practice for OA.ConclusionsImplementation of evidence-based care for patients with OA is feasible in general practice and has an immediate impact on improving the quality of care delivered to patients. However, improved levels of quality of care, changes to current best practice physiotherapy and successful introduction of psychological screening, as achieved by this programme, did not substantially reduce patients’ pain and disability. This poses important challenges for clinical practice and OA research.LimitationsThe key limitation in this work is the lack of improvement in patient-reported pain and disability despite clear evidence of enhanced delivery of evidence-based care.Future work recommendations(1) New thinking and research is needed into the achievable and desirable long-term goals of care for people with OA, (2) continuing investigation into the resources needed to properly implement clinical guidelines for management of OA as a long-term condition, such as regular monitoring to maintain exercise and physical activity and (3) new research to identify subgroups of patients with OA as a basis for stratified primary care including (i) those with good prognosis who can self-manage with minimal investigation or specialist treatment, (ii) those who will respond to, and benefit from, specific interventions in primary care, such as physiotherapy-led exercise, and (iii) develop research into effective identification and treatment of clinically important anxiety and depression in patients with OA and into the effects of pain management on psychological outcomes in patients with OA.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06984617, ISRCTN93634563 and ISRCTN40721988.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research Programme; Vol. 6, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elaine Hay
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Krysia Dziedzic
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Nadine Foster
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - George Peat
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Danielle van der Windt
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Bernadette Bartlam
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Milisa Blagojevic-Bucknall
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - John Edwards
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Emma Healey
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Melanie Holden
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Rhian Hughes
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Clare Jinks
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Kelvin Jordan
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Sue Jowett
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Martyn Lewis
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Christian Mallen
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Andrew Morden
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Elaine Nicholls
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Bie Nio Ong
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Mark Porcheret
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jerome Wulff
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jesse Kigozi
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Raymond Oppong
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
- Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Zoe Paskins
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Peter Croft
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dziedzic KS, Allen KD. Challenges and controversies of complex interventions in osteoarthritis management: recognizing inappropriate and discordant care. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018; 57:iv88-iv98. [PMID: 29684219 PMCID: PMC5905599 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/key062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2017] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
A number of controversies and challenges exist for the management of OA in health care. This paper describes the challenges and gaps in OA care, particularly in relation to population health management, complex interventions and outcomes. It sets this in the context of competing health priorities and multimorbidity, access to high quality conservative care, non-pharmacological therapies, resource limitations and models of care. The overuse of some therapies and neglect of others are discussed, as well as the potential for self-management. The roles of patient and public involvement and the healthcare team are highlighted in enhancing best care for OA and providing solutions for closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Implementation of models of care offer one solution to the challenges and progress of such implementation is described. Areas for further research are highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krysia S Dziedzic
- Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Kelli D Allen
- Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.,Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chou L, Ellis L, Papandony M, Seneviwickrama KLMD, Cicuttini FM, Sullivan K, Teichtahl AJ, Wang Y, Briggs AM, Wluka AE. Patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information: A systematic scoping review. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0195489. [PMID: 29659609 PMCID: PMC5901923 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2017] [Accepted: 03/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Optimal management of osteoarthritis requires active patient participation. Understanding patients' perceived health information needs is important in order to optimize health service delivery and health outcomes in osteoarthritis. We aimed to review the existing literature regarding patients' perceived health information needs for OA. METHODS A systematic scoping review was performed of publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (1990-2016). Descriptive data regarding study design and methodology were extracted and risk of bias assessed. Aggregates of patients' perceived needs of osteoarthritis health information were categorized. RESULTS 30 studies from 2876 were included: 16 qualitative, 11 quantitative and 3 mixed-methods studies. Three areas of perceived need emerged: (1) Need for clear communication: terms used were misunderstood or had unintended connotations. Patients wanted clear explanations. (2) Need for information from various sources: patients wanted accessible health professionals with specialist knowledge of arthritis. The Internet, whilst a source of information, was acknowledged to have dubious reliability. Print media, television, support groups, family and friends were utilised to fulfil diverse information needs. (3) Needs of information content: patients desired more information about diagnosis, prognosis, management and prevention. CONCLUSIONS Patients desire more information regarding the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, its impact on daily life and its long-term prognosis. They want more information not only about pharmacological management options, but also non-pharmacological options to help them manage their symptoms. Also, patients wanted this information to be delivered in a clear manner from multiple sources of health information. To address these gaps, more effective communication strategies are required. The use of a variety of sources and modes of delivery may enable the provision of complementary material to provide information more successfully, resulting in better patient adherence to guidelines and improved health outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louisa Chou
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lisa Ellis
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Michelle Papandony
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - K. L. Maheeka D. Seneviwickrama
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Flavia M. Cicuttini
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kaye Sullivan
- Monash University Library, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew J. Teichtahl
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Yuanyuan Wang
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew M. Briggs
- School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Move: muscle, bone & joint health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anita E. Wluka
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26:43-53. [PMID: 29037845 PMCID: PMC5759997 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.09.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2017] [Revised: 09/20/2017] [Accepted: 09/26/2017] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of a model osteoarthritis consultation, compared with usual care, on physical function and uptake of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis recommendations, in adults ≥45 years consulting with peripheral joint pain in UK general practice. METHOD Two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with baseline health survey. Eight general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS 525 adults ≥45 years consulting for peripheral joint pain, amongst 28,443 population survey recipients. Four intervention practices delivered the model osteoarthritis consultation to patients consulting with peripheral joint pain; four control practices continued usual care. The primary clinical outcome of the trial was the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) at 6 months; the main secondary outcome was uptake of NICE core recommendations by 6 months, measured by osteoarthritis quality indicators. A Linear Mixed Model was used to analyse clinical outcome data (SF-12 PCS). Differences in quality indicator outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS 525 eligible participants were enrolled (mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.5; 59.6% female): 288 from intervention and 237 from control practices. There were no statistically significant differences in SF-12 PCS: mean difference at the 6-month primary endpoint was -0.37 (95% CI -2.32, 1.57). Uptake of core NICE recommendations by 6 months was statistically significantly higher in the intervention arm compared with control: e.g., increased written exercise information, 20.5% (7.9, 28.3). CONCLUSION Whilst uptake of core NICE recommendations was increased, there was no evidence of benefit of this intervention, as delivered in this pragmatic randomised trial, on the primary outcome of physical functioning at 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN06984617.
Collapse
|
10
|
Jordan K, Edwards J, Porcheret M, Healey E, Jinks C, Bedson J, Clarkson K, Hay E, Dziedzic K. Effect of a model consultation informed by guidelines on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25:1588-1597. [PMID: 28591564 PMCID: PMC5613776 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2017] [Revised: 05/24/2017] [Accepted: 05/27/2017] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. DESIGN Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. PARTICIPANTS General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. INTERVENTION Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. OUTCOMES Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. RESULTS 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4-28%), exercise (4-22%) and weight loss (1-15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1-3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). CONCLUSIONS The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN06984617.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K.P. Jordan
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK,Keele Clinical Trials Unit, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK,Address correspondence and reprint requests to: K.P. Jordan, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.Arthritis Research UK Primary Care CentreResearch Institute for Primary Care & Health SciencesKeele UniversityDavid Weatherall BuildingStaffordshireST5 5BGUK
| | - J.J. Edwards
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - M. Porcheret
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - E.L. Healey
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - C. Jinks
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - J. Bedson
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - K. Clarkson
- Keele Clinical Trials Unit, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - E.M. Hay
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| | - K.S. Dziedzic
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Healey EL, Main CJ, Ryan S, McHugh GA, Porcheret M, Finney AG, Morden A, Dziedzic KS. A nurse-led clinic for patients consulting with osteoarthritis in general practice: development and impact of training in a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE 2016; 17:173. [PMID: 28003026 PMCID: PMC5178095 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-016-0568-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2016] [Accepted: 11/30/2016] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Background Despite a lack of service provision for people with osteoarthritis (OA), each year 1 in 5 of the general population consults a GP about a musculoskeletal condition such as OA. Consequently this may provide an opportunity for practice nurses to take an active role in helping patients manage their condition. A nurse led clinic for supporting patients with OA was developed for the MOSAICS study investigating how to implement the NICE 2014 OA Guideline core recommendations. This paper has two main objectives, firstly to provide an overview of the nurse-led OA clinic, and secondly to describe the development, key learning objectives, content and impact of the training to support its delivery. Methods A training programme was developed and delivered to provide practice nurses with the knowledge and skill set needed to run the nurse-led OA clinic. The impact of the training programme on knowledge, confidence and OA management was evaluated using case report forms and pre and post training questionnaires. Results The pre-training questionnaire identified a gap between what practice nurses feel they can do and what they should be doing in line with NICE OA guidelines. Evaluation of the training suggests that it enabled practice nurses to feel more knowledgeable and confident in supporting patients to manage their OA and this was reflected in the clinical management patients received in the nurse-led OA clinics. Conclusions A significant gap between what is recommended and what practice nurses feel they can currently provide in terms of OA management was evident. The development of a nurse training programme goes some way to develop a system in primary care for delivering the core recommendations by NICE. Trial registration The cluster trial linked to this training was conducted from May 2012 through February 2014 by the Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, UK (Trial registration number ISRCTN06984617). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0568-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma L Healey
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
| | - Chris J Main
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Sarah Ryan
- Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Partnership NHS Trust, Haywood Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.,Keele University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Clinical Education Centre, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Gretl A McHugh
- School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Yorkshire, UK
| | - Mark Porcheret
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Andrew G Finney
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.,Keele University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Clinical Education Centre, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
| | - Andrew Morden
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Gloucestershire, UK
| | - Krysia S Dziedzic
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Prothero L, Georgopoulou S, de Souza S, Bosworth A, Bearne L, Lempp H. Patient involvement in the development of a handbook for moderate rheumatoid arthritis. Health Expect 2016; 20:288-297. [PMID: 27086728 PMCID: PMC5354020 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12457] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/27/2016] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Self-management is a key recommendation for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Educational materials may support self-management, and increasingly patients are becoming involved with the development of these materials. The TITRATE trial compares the effectiveness of intensive management to standard care in patients with moderate RA across England. As part of the intensive management intervention, participants are given a handbook. AIM AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to develop a handbook to support the intensive management. The objectives were to: (i) involve patients in the identification of relevant information for inclusion in the TITRATE handbook; (ii) ensure the content of the handbook is acceptable and accessible. DESIGN We held an audio-taped workshop with RA patients. The transcript of the workshop was analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS Five main themes were identified as follows: 'rheumatoid arthritis treatment, perceptions of rheumatoid arthritis, the importance of individualized goals, benefits of self-management and the patient handbook'. Feedback from the workshop was incorporated into the handbook, and patients' anonymous testimonies were added. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that patient contribution to the development of educational material to support intensive management of RA is both feasible and valuable. A qualitative evaluation of the use and impact of the handbook with patients and practitioners is planned on completion of the TITRATE trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Prothero
- Academic Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Trials Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, UK
| | - Sofia Georgopoulou
- Academic Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Trials Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, UK
| | - Savia de Souza
- Academic Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Trials Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, UK
| | - Ailsa Bosworth
- National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK
| | - Lindsay Bearne
- Academic Department of Physiotherapy, Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Heidi Lempp
- Academic Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Trials Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Blackburn S, Higginbottom A, Taylor R, Bird J, Østerås N, Hagen KB, Edwards JJ, Jordan KP, Jinks C, Dziedzic K. Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2016; 2:5. [PMID: 29062506 PMCID: PMC5611660 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0019-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2015] [Accepted: 02/09/2016] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY People with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective. The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA. This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway. This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient's perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries. ABSTRACT Background People with osteoarthritis (OA) desire high quality care, support and information about OA. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators (QI) can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care (e.g. NICE quality standards) are being met from a patient perspective. A Research User Group (RUG) worked with researchers to co-produce a set of self-report, patient-generated QIs for OA. The QIs were intended for use in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE guidelines. We report on 1) the co-development of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire for primary care; and 2) the comparison of the content of the OA QI (UK) questionnaire with a parallel questionnaire developed in Norway for the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker (MUST) study. Methods Researchers were invited to OA RUG meetings. Firstly, RUG members were asked to consider factors important to patients consulting their general practitioner (GP) for OA and then each person rated their five most important. RUG members then discussed these in relation to a systematic review of OA QIs in order to form a list of OA QIs from a patient perspective. RUG members suggested wording and response options for a draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire to assess the QIs. Finally RUG members commented on draft and final versions of the questionnaire and how it compared with a translated Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire. Results RUG members (5 males, 5 females; aged 52-80 years) attended up to four meetings. RUG members ranked 20 factors considered most important to patients consulting their GP for joint pain. Following discussion, a list of eleven patient-reported QIs for OA consultations were formed. RUG members then suggested the wording and response options of 16 draft items - four QIs were split into two or more questionnaire items to avoid multiple dimensions of care quality within a single item. On comparison of this to the Norwegian OA-QI questionnaire, RUG members commented that both questionnaires contained seven similar QIs. The RUG members and researchers agreed to adopt the Norwegian OA-QI wording for four of these items. RUG members also recommended adopting an additional seven items from the Norwegian OA-QI with some minor word changes to improve their suitability for patients in the UK. One other item from the draft OA QI (UK) questionnaire was retained and eight items were excluded, resulting in a 15-item final version. Conclusions This study describes the development of patient-reported quality indicators for OA primary care derived by members of a RUG group, working in partnership with the research team throughout the study. The OA QI (UK) supports the NICE quality standards for OA and they have been successfully used to assess the quality of OA consultations in primary care in the MOSAICS study. The OA QI (UK) has the potential for routine use in primary care to assess the quality of OA care provided to patients. Ongoing research using both the UK and Norwegian OA-QI questionnaires is assessing the self-reported quality of OA care in different European populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven Blackburn
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Adele Higginbottom
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Robert Taylor
- Lay Member of the Osteoarthritis Research User Group, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Jo Bird
- Lay Member of the Osteoarthritis Research User Group, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | | | | | - John J. Edwards
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Kelvin P. Jordan
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Clare Jinks
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Krysia Dziedzic
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kao MH, Tsai YF. Development and Psychometric Testing of a Scale for Evaluating Self-Management Needs of Knee Osteoarthritis (SMNKOA) in Taiwan. Clin Nurs Res 2016; 26:354-372. [PMID: 26873657 DOI: 10.1177/1054773816630250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is important for treating this chronic disease. This study developed and psychometrically tested a new instrument for measuring adult patients' self-management needs of knee osteoarthritis (SMNKOA). The theoretical framework of self-care guided the development of the 35-item SMNKOA scale. Participants ( N = 372) were purposively sampled from orthopedic clinics at medical centers in Taiwan. The content validity index was 0.83. Principal components analysis identified a three-factor solution, accounting for 53.19% of the variance. The divergent validity was -0.67; convergent validity was -0.51. Cronbach's alpha was .95, Pearson's correlation coefficient was .88, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was .95. The scale's reliability and validity supports the SMNKOA, as a tool to measure self-management needs of adults with knee OA. Nurses and other health care providers can use this instrument to evaluate knee OA patients and identify strategies for improving health-related outcomes and patient education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mei-Hua Kao
- 1 Mackay Junior College of Medicine, Nursing, and Management, New Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Yun-Fang Tsai
- 2 Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.,3 Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Keelung, Keelung, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Morden A, Brooks L, Jinks C, Porcheret M, Ong BN, Dziedzic K. Research “push”, long term-change, and general practice. J Health Organ Manag 2015; 29:798-821. [DOI: 10.1108/jhom-07-2014-0119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
– Intervention evaluations have not always accounted for long-term implementation of interventions. The purpose of this paper is to explore implementation of a primary care intervention during the lifespan of the trial and beyond.
Design/methodology/approach
– Eight general practices participated in the trial (four control and four intervention). In-depth interviews (with nine GPs and four practices nurses who delivered the intervention) and observation methods were employed. Thematic analysis was utilized and Normalization Process Theory (NPT) constructs were compared with emergent themes.
Findings
– Macro-level policy imperatives shaped practice priorities which resulted in the “whole system” new intervention not being perceived to be sustainable. Continued routinization of the intervention into usual care beyond the lifespan of the funded study was dependent on individualized monitoring and taking forward tacit knowledge.
Research limitations/implications
– The authors discuss the implications of these findings for sociological theories of implementation and understanding outcomes of research led complex interventions.
Originality/value
– The study describes the complex interplay between macro processes and individual situated practices and contributes to understanding if, how, and why interventions are sustained beyond initial “research push”. The value of the study lies in describing the conditions and potential consequences of long-term implementation, which might be translated to other contexts.
Collapse
|
16
|
Jinks C, Carter P, Rhodes C, Beech R, Dziedzic K, Hughes R, Blackburn S, Ong BN. Sustaining patient and public involvement in research: A case study of a research centre. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2015; 7:146-154. [PMID: 26705412 PMCID: PMC4362802 DOI: 10.1179/1750168715y.0000000003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
The literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of topics. However, one area of investigation that appears under developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects. This paper presents a case study of PPI development in one primary care research centre in England, and its approach to making this sustainable using documentary sources and material from a formal evaluation. We provide narrative accounts of the set-up, operation and main processes of PPI, and its perceived impact. PPI requires a long-term perspective with participation and trust growing over time, and both users and researchers learning what approaches work best. PPI is a complex interplay of clarity of purpose, defined roles and relationships, organised support (paid PPI staff) and a well-funded infrastructure. ‘Soft systems’ are equally important such as flexible and informal approaches to meetings, adapting timetables and environments to meet the needs of lay members and to create spaces for relationships to develop between researchers and lay members that are based on mutual trust and respect. This case study highlights that the right combination of ethos, flexible working practices, leadership, and secure funding goes a long way to embedding PPI beyond ad hoc involvement. This allows PPI in research to be integrated in the infrastructure and sustainable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare Jinks
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Pam Carter
- Social Science Applied to Healthcare Improvement Research (SAPPHIRE) Group and East Midlands Research Design Service, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK
| | - Carol Rhodes
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Roger Beech
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Krysia Dziedzic
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Rhian Hughes
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Steven Blackburn
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| | - Bie Nio Ong
- Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Morden A, Jinks C, Ong BN, Porcheret M, Dziedzic KS. Acceptability of a 'guidebook' for the management of Osteoarthritis: a qualitative study of patient and clinician's perspectives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15:427. [PMID: 25496765 PMCID: PMC4301067 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2014] [Accepted: 12/08/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Written information can be of benefit to both practitioners and patients and the provision of quality information is emphasised as a core intervention by United Kingdom National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) OA guidelines. Researchers, patients and HCPs developed an 'OA guidebook' to provide; a) a balanced source of information for patients; b) a resource to aid practitioners when discussing self-management. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and usefulness of the OA guidebook as part of complex intervention to deliver NICE OA guidelines in General Practice. METHODS The intervention comprises a series of consultations with GPs and practice nurses in which supported self-management is offered to patients. Eight practices in the West Midlands and North West of England were recruited to take part: four control practices and four intervention practices. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients (n = 29), GPs (n = 9) and practice nurses (n = 4) from the intervention practices to explore experiences of the intervention and use of the guidebook. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison of data within and across interviews. RESULTS GPs thought the guidebook helped provide patients with information about OA aetiology, prognosis and self-management. Thus, it backed up key messages they provided patients during consultations. GPs also found the guidebook helped them 'close off' consultations. Nurses also thought the guidebook helped them describe OA disease processes in consultations. Patients valued the explanations of disease onset, process and prognosis. The use of 'real' people and 'real life' situations contained within the guidebook made self-management strategies seem more tangible. A sense of inclusion and comfort was obtained from knowing other people encountered similar problems and feelings. CONCLUSION An OA specific written information guidebook was deemed acceptable and useful to practitioners and patients alike as part of the MOSAICS study. Findings reinforce the utility of this model of patient information as a resource to support patients living with chronic illnesses. An OA guidebook featuring a mixture of lay and professional information developed by professionals and lay people is useful and could effectively be used more widely in usual care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Morden
- Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Dziedzic KS, Healey EL, Porcheret M, Ong BN, Main CJ, Jordan KP, Lewis M, Edwards JJ, Jinks C, Morden A, McHugh GA, Ryan S, Finney A, Jowett S, Oppong R, Afolabi E, Pushpa-Rajah A, Handy J, Clarkson K, Mason E, Whitehurst T, Hughes RW, Croft PR, Hay EM. Implementing the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines: a mixed methods study and cluster randomised trial of a model osteoarthritis consultation in primary care--the Management of OsteoArthritis In Consultations (MOSAICS) study protocol. Implement Sci 2014; 9:95. [PMID: 25209897 PMCID: PMC4176866 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0095-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2014] [Accepted: 07/08/2014] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving ‘quality markers’ of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain. Design A mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial. Method This study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive ‘whole-system’ evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations. Discussion The main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance. Trial registration ISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0095-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
19
|
Porcheret M, Main C, Croft P, McKinley R, Hassell A, Dziedzic K. Development of a behaviour change intervention: a case study on the practical application of theory. Implement Sci 2014; 9:42. [PMID: 24708880 PMCID: PMC3983864 DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-42] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2013] [Accepted: 03/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Use of theory in implementation of complex interventions is widely recommended. A complex trial intervention, to enhance self-management support for people with osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care, needed to be implemented in the Managing Osteoarthritis in Consultations (MOSAICS) trial. One component of the trial intervention was delivery by general practitioners (GPs) of an enhanced consultation for patients with OA. The aim of our case study is to describe the systematic selection and use of theory to develop a behaviour change intervention to implement GP delivery of the enhanced consultation. METHODS The development of the behaviour change intervention was guided by four theoretical models/frameworks: i) an implementation of change model to guide overall approach, ii) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify relevant determinants of change, iii) a model for the selection of behaviour change techniques to address identified determinants of behaviour change, and iv) the principles of adult learning. Methods and measures to evaluate impact of the behaviour change intervention were identified. RESULTS The behaviour change intervention presented the GPs with a well-defined proposal for change; addressed seven of the TDF domains (e.g., knowledge, skills, motivation and goals); incorporated ten behaviour change techniques (e.g., information provision, skills rehearsal, persuasive communication); and was delivered in workshops that valued the expertise and professional values of GPs. The workshops used a mixture of interactive and didactic sessions, were facilitated by opinion leaders, and utilised 'context-bound communication skills training.' Methods and measures selected to evaluate the behaviour change intervention included: appraisal of satisfaction with workshops, GP report of intention to practise and an assessment of video-recorded consultations of GPs with patients with OA. CONCLUSIONS A stepped approach to the development of a behaviour change intervention, with the utilisation of theoretical frameworks to identify determinants of change matched with behaviour change techniques, has enabled a systematic and theory-driven development of an intervention designed to enhance consultations by GPs for patients with OA. The success of the behaviour change intervention in practice will be evaluated in the context of the MOSAICS trial as a whole, and will inform understanding of practice level and patient outcomes in the trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Porcheret
- Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Tritter J. Patient-centred care and patient and public involvement. Health Expect 2014; 17:151-3. [PMID: 24635886 DOI: 10.1111/hex.12192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
21
|
Web-based information for pregnant women and new mothers with type 1 diabetes--a description of the development process. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12:134. [PMID: 23167552 PMCID: PMC3519759 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2012] [Accepted: 11/12/2012] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This paper describes the process of developing specifically designed web-based maternity information for women with type 1 diabetes. Methods A participatory design was used and the information was evaluated in seven stages by researchers, professional experts and users. All steps of the development process were noted in an online logbook. Results The information developed gradually and its contents were reviewed by nurse-midwives, nurses and physicians specializing in different key areas including diabetes care, paediatrics, obstetrics and breastfeeding, a clinical dietician and mothers with type 1 diabetes. The draft was reviewed in regard to its cultural suitability and the information material was adjusted to meet quality criterions. Finally, the text was adapted for a lay audience. Conclusions Using participatory design required time and resources, however; it proved a functional way of producing appropriate information for the target group.
Collapse
|