Educational needs in patients with knee osteoarthritis using the SpENAT questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a major public health issue because it causes pain and functional limitation in patients. Engagement with self-management may, however, minimize the impact of KOA on the health of patients suffering this illness. To be fully engaged with self-management activities, knowledge about KOA is a prerequisite. There is data on people's understanding of KOA and their needs for information about KOA. The Educational Needs Assessment Tool-Spanish version (SpENAT) is a self-reported questionnaire that assesses educational needs (Ned) in order to provide information adapted and focused on patients with knee KOA. It comprises 39 questions grouped into seven domains: Pain, Movement, Feelings, Osteoarthritis, Medical treatment, Non-medical treatment, Help.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the Ned in patients with knee KOA using the SpENAT.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

An observational, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was carried out in 215 patients with a diagnosis of knee KOA according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology who attended the service's protocolized consultation of knee conditions of rheumatology at the "Hermanos Ameijeiras" Surgical Clinical Hospital during the study period between January 2017 and August 2020. Demographic data, educational level and characteristics of the disease were recorded. All patients completed the SpENAT and were questioned about the sources they turn to obtain information on their disease.

RESULTS

Women over 50 years of age and overweight with a diagnosis of OA predominated. Major Ned were observed in the domains of movement, help, pain, feeling, KOA. Patients over 50 years of age, female, normal weight, and active workers showed greater interest in the movement domain. The most used source of information was the rheumatologist (91.60%).

CONCLUSION

The Ned in patients with knee KOA are high, and are higher in the domains of movement, pain, help and feeling. The rheumatologist is the main source of information for patients with KOA, it seems wise to design a targeted strategy to educate people about KOA to provide, support and prepare them for self-management.

Value-Based Health Care in Hand Surgery: Where Are We & Where Do We Go From Here?

Health care delivery is broken. The cost of care continues to skyrocket and the outcomes most important to patients are often a mystery. Further, care is often delivered via a fee-for-service model where surgeons are rewarded for the quantity, not the quality, of services provided. Such a health care delivery system is not sustainable and does not incentivize stakeholders to focus on the most important element of the health care delivery "puzzle": the patient. Fortunately, we are in the midst of transforming our health care delivery system, with a focus on optimizing the value of care delivery (ie, health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full care cycle). In hand surgery, progress has been made as part of this health system evolution. However, there remains much to accomplish. In this article, the authors review the 6 components of a strategic agenda for moving to a high-value health care delivery system for hand surgery, focusing on where we are today and where we need to go from here.

Differences in orthotic design for thumb osteoarthritis and its impact on functional outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Orthoses are a well-known intervention for the treatment of thumb osteoarthritis; however, there is a multitude of orthotic designs and not enough evidence to support the efficacy of specific models.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of different orthoses on pain, hand strength, and hand function of patients with thumb osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

METHODS

A scoping literature review of 14 publications reporting orthotic interventions for patients with thumb osteoarthritis was conducted. Functional outcomes and measures were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 12 studies reported improvements in pain and hand strength after the use of thumb orthoses. Comparisons between different orthotic designs were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

The use of orthoses can decrease pain and improve hand function of patients with thumb osteoarthritis; however, the effectiveness of different orthoses still needs support through adequate evidence. Clinical relevance Multiple orthoses for thumb osteoarthritis are available. Although current studies support their use to improve pain and hand function, there is no evidence to support the efficacy of specific orthotic designs. Improved functional outcomes can be achieved through the use of short orthoses, providing thumb stabilization without immobilizing adjacent joints.

PANLAR Consensus Recommendations for the Management in Osteoarthritis of Hand, Hip, and Knee

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this consensus is to update the recommendations for the treatment of hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis (OA) by agreeing on key propositions relating to the management of hand, hip, and knee OA, by identifying and critically appraising research evidence for the effectiveness of the treatments and by generating recommendations based on a combination of the available evidence and expert opinion of 18 countries of America.

METHODS

Recommendations were developed by a group of 48 specialists of rheumatologists, members of other medical disciplines (orthopedics and physiatrists), and three patients, one for each location of OA. A systematic review of existing articles, meta-analyses, and guidelines for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA published between 2008 and January 2014 was undertaken. The scores for Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation were proposed and fully consented within the committee based on The American Heart Association Evidence-Based Scoring System. The level of agreement was established through a variation of Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Both "strong" and "conditional" recommendations are given for management of hand, hip, and knee OA and nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical modalities of treatment are presented according to the different levels of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are based on the consensus of clinical experts from a wide range of disciplines taking available evidence into account while balancing the benefits and risks of nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical treatment modalities, and incorporating their preferences and values. Different backgrounds in terms of patient education or drug availability in different countries were not evaluated but will be important.

Exercise for hand osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disease that may lead to pain, stiffness and problems in performing hand-related activities of daily living. Currently, no cure for OA is known, and non-pharmacological modalities are recommended as first-line care. A positive effect of exercise in hip and knee OA has been documented, but the effect of exercise on hand OA remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of exercise compared with other interventions, including placebo or no intervention, in people with hand OA. Main outcomes are hand pain and hand function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched six electronic databases up until September 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing therapeutic exercise versus no exercise or comparing different exercise programmes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes consisted of both continuous (hand pain, physical function, finger joint stiffness and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportions of adverse events and withdrawals).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies in the review. Most studies were free from selection and reporting bias, but one study was available only as a congress abstract. It was not possible to blind participants to treatment allocation, and although most studies reported blinded outcome assessors, some outcomes (pain, function, stiffness and quality of life) were self-reported. The results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias owing to unblinded participants and self-reported outcomes. Two studies with high drop-out rates may be vulnerable to attrition bias. We downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to low owing to potential detection bias (lack of blinding of participants on self-reported outcomes) and imprecision (studies were few, the number of participants was limited and confidence intervals were wide for the outcomes pain, function and joint stiffness). For quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, we further downgraded the overall quality of the body of evidence to very low because studies were very few and confidence intervals were very wide.Low-quality evidence from five trials (381 participants) indicated that exercise reduced hand pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.07) post intervention. The absolute reduction in pain for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 5% (1% to 9%) on a 0 to 10 point scale. Pain was estimated to be 3.9 points on this scale (0 = no pain) in the control group, and exercise reduced pain by 0.5 points (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 9).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise improved hand function (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.02) post intervention. The absolute improvement in function noted in the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 6% (0.4% worsening to 13% improvement). Function was estimated at 14.5 points on a 0 to 36 point scale (0 = no physical disability) in the control group, and exercise improved function by 2.2 points (95% CI -0.2 to 4.6; NNTB 9).One study (113 participants) evaluated quality of life, and the effect of exercise on quality of life is currently uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -3.72 to 4.32). The absolute improvement in quality of life for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 0.3% (4% worsening to 4% improvement). Quality of life was 50.4 points on a 0 to 100 point scale (100 = maximum quality of life) in the control group, and the mean score in the exercise group was 0.3 points higher (3.5 points lower to 4.1 points higher).Four studies (369 participants) indicated that exercise reduced finger joint stiffness (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.15) post intervention. The absolute reduction in finger joint stiffness for the exercise group, compared with the control group, was 7% (3% to 10%). Finger joint stiffness was estimated at 4.5 points on a 0 to 10 point scale (0 = no stiffness) in the control group, and exercise improved stiffness by 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0; NNTB 7).Three studies reported intervention-related adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. The few reported adverse events consisted of increased finger joint inflammation and hand pain. Low-quality evidence from the three studies showed an increased likelihood of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 4.55, 95% CI 0.53 to 39.31) and of withdrawals due to adverse events in the exercise group compared with the control group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 27.18), but the effect is uncertain and further research may change the estimates.Included studies did not measure radiographic joint structure changes. Two studies provided six-month follow-up data (220 participants), and one (102 participants) provided 12-month follow-up data. The positive effect of exercise on pain, function and joint stiffness was not sustained at medium- and long-term follow-up.The exercise intervention varied largely in terms of dosage, content and number of supervised sessions. Participants were instructed to exercise two to three times a week in four studies, daily in two studies and three to four times daily in another study. Exercise interventions in all seven studies aimed to improve muscle strength and joint stability or function, but the numbers and types of exercises varied largely across studies. Four studies reported adherence to the exercise programme; in three studies, this was self-reported. Self-reported adherence to the recommended frequency of exercise sessions ranged between 78% and 94%. In the fourth study, 67% fulfilled at least 16 of the 18 scheduled exercise sessions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When we pooled results from five studies, we found low-quality evidence showing small beneficial effects of exercise on hand pain, function and finger joint stiffness. Estimated effect sizes were small, and whether they represent a clinically important change may be debated. One study reported quality of life, and the effect is uncertain. Three studies reported on adverse events, which were very few and were not severe.

Differences in muscle activity during hand-dexterity tasks between women with arthritis and a healthy reference group

BACKGROUND

Impaired hand function is common in patients with arthritis and it affects performance of daily activities; thus, hand exercises are recommended. There is little information on the extent to which the disease affects activation of the flexor and extensor muscles during these hand-dexterity tasks. The purpose of this study was to compare muscle activation during such tasks in subjects with arthritis and in a healthy reference group.

METHODS

Muscle activation was measured in m. extensor digitorium communis (EDC) and in m. flexor carpi radialis (FCR) with surface electromyography (EMG) in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 20), hand osteoarthritis (HOA, n = 16) and in a healthy reference group (n = 20) during the performance of four daily activity tasks and four hand exercises. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) was measured to enable intermuscular comparisons, and muscle activation is presented as %MVIC.

RESULTS

The arthritis group used a higher %MVIC than the reference group in both FCR and EDC when cutting with a pair of scissors, pulling up a zipper and-for the EDC-also when writing with a pen and using a key (p < 0.02). The exercise "rolling dough with flat hands" required the lowest %MVIC and may be less effective in improving muscle strength.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with arthritis tend to use higher levels of muscle activation in daily tasks than healthy women, and wrist extensors and flexors appear to be equally affected. It is important that hand training programs reflect real-life situations and focus also on extensor strength.

No evidence for the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary group based treatment program in patients with osteoarthritis of hands on the short term; results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of a multidisciplinary non-pharmacological intervention in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

Parallel group randomized controlled trial was performed in three participating rheumatology outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. Block randomization was performed using a computer generated permuted block scheme (blocks of four). An independent person randomly assigned 151 participants with clinical hand OA to four sessions of multidisciplinary non-pharmacological treatment, or 30 min education followed by 3 months waiting time. Participants and therapists were not blinded to the assigned intervention. The research assistant who assessed all outcomes was blinded to the assigned intervention. Subscale limitations in activities of the Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) and OARSI responder criteria (primary outcomes) and secondary outcome measures, were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. Linear or logistic regression analyses were used, where appropriate, with the outcome as dependent and the intervention group as independent variable. The analyses were adjusted for baseline values.

RESULTS

At 3 months no significant and no relevant differences were observed between the experimental (n = 76) and control group (n = 75) in any of the primary or secondary outcome measures. In both groups about one-third of patients were classified as responder.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to confirm a clinically relevant treatment effect on the short term, between patients who followed a multidisciplinary treatment program and those who received only written information. Since hand OA causes a range of impairments and limitations in activities, programs with more guidance to formulate and implement individually tailored treatment plans could be probably more effective. Furthermore, more research is needed on the efficacy of single treatment elements. (Dutch Trial Register trial number NTR1191).

Feasibility and potential effectiveness of a non-pharmacological multidisciplinary care programme for persons with generalised osteoarthritis: a randomised, multiple-baseline single-case study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and potential effectiveness of a 12-week, non-pharmacological multidisciplinary intervention in patients with generalised osteoarthritis (GOA).

DESIGN

A randomised, concurrent, multiple-baseline single-case design. During the baseline period, the intervention period and the postintervention period, all participants completed several health outcomes twice a week on Visual Analogue Scales.

SETTING

Rheumatology outpatient department of a specialised hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

1 man and four women (aged 51-76 years) diagnosed with GOA.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess feasibility, the authors assessed the number of dropouts and adverse events, adherence rates and patients' satisfaction.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess the potential effectiveness, the authors assessed pain and self-efficacy using visual data inspection and randomisation tests.

RESULTS

The intervention was feasible in terms of adverse events (none) and adherence rate but not in terms of participants' satisfaction with the intervention. Visual inspection of the data and randomisation testing demonstrated no effects on pain (p=0.93) or self-efficacy (p=0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study indicate that the proposed intervention for patients with GOA was insufficiently feasible and effective. The data obtained through this multiple-baseline study have highlighted several areas in which the therapy programme can be optimised.