Physical activity on prescription in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

Follow-up of individualised physical activity on prescription and individualised advice in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Compare the long-term effects of two different individualised physical activity interventions in hip or knee osteoarthritis patients.

DESIGN

Randomised, assessor-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care.

SUBJECTS

Patients with clinically verified hip or knee osteoarthritis, <150 min/week with moderate or vigorous physical activity, aged 40-74.

INTERVENTION

The advice group (n = 69) received a 1-h information and goalsetting session for individualised physical activity. The prescription group (n = 72) received information, goalsetting, individualised written prescription, self-monitoring, and four follow-ups.

MAIN MEASURES

Physical activity, physical function, pain and quality of life at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

There were only minor differences in outcomes between the two groups. For self-reported physical activity, the advice group had improved from a mean of 102 (95% CI 74-130) minutes/week at baseline to 214 (95% CI 183-245) minutes/week at 24 months, while the prescription group had improved from 130 (95% CI 103-157) to 176 (95% CI 145-207) minutes/week (p = 0.01 between groups). Number of steps/day decreased by -514 (95% CI -567-462) steps from baseline to 24 months in the advice group, and the decrease in the prescription group was -852 (95% CI -900-804) steps (p = 0.415 between groups). Pain (HOOS/KOOS) in the advice group had improved by 7.9 points (95% CI 7.5-8.2) and in the prescription group by 14.7 points (95% CI 14.3-15.1) from baseline to 24 months (p = 0.024 between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that individualised physical activity on prescription differs from individualised advice in improving long-term effects in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update

INTRODUCTION

Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed.

METHODS

The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed.

RESULTS

The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

One leg testing in hip and knee osteoarthritis: A comparison with a two-leg oriented functional outcome measure and self-reported functional measures

OBJECTIVE

To compare the responsiveness of two unilateral lower-limb performance-based tests, the one-leg rise test and the maximal step-up test, with the bilateral 30-second chair-stand test and the self-reported measure of physical function (HOOS/KOOS). Specific aims were to evaluate responsiveness, floor/ceiling effect and association between the instruments.

METHOD

Data was included from 111 participants, mean age 61.3 years (8.3), with clinically verified hip or knee osteoarthritis, who reported less than 150 minutes/week of moderate or vigorous intensity physical activity. Responsiveness, how well the instruments captured improvements, was measured as Cohen's standardised mean difference for effect size, and was assessed from baseline to 12 months following a physical activity intervention. Other assessments were floor and ceiling effects, and correlations between tests.

RESULTS

The maximal step-up test had an effect size of 0.57 (95% CI 0.37, 0.77), the 30-second chair-stand 0.48 (95% CI 0.29, 0.68) and the one-leg rise test 0.12 (95% CI 0.60, 0.31). The one-leg rise test had a floor effect as 72% of the participants scored zero at baseline and 63% at 12 months. The correlation between performance-based tests and questionnaires was considered to be minor (r = 0.188 to 0.226) (p = 0.018 to 0.048).

CONCLUSION

The unilateral maximal step-up test seems more responsive to change in physical function compared to the bilateral 30-second chair-stand test, although the tests did not differ statistically in effect size. The maximal step-up test provides specific information about each leg for the individual and allows for comparison between the legs.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of physical activity referral schemes' components

BACKGROUND

Physical activity referral schemes (PARS) are complex multicomponent interventions that represent a promising healthcare-based concept for physical activity (PA) promotion. This systematic review and narrative synthesis aimed to identify the constitutive components of PARS and provide an overview of their effectiveness.

METHODS

Following a published protocol, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE from 1990 to January 2023. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that targeted adults participating in PARS and reported PA outcomes, scheme uptake, or adherence rates. We performed an intervention components analysis using the PARS taxonomy to identify scheme components and extracted data related to uptake, adherence, and PA behavior change. We combined these to provide a narrative summary of PARS effectiveness.

RESULTS

We included 57 studies reporting on 36 PARS models from twelve countries. We identified 19 PARS components: a patient-centered approach, individualized content, behavior change theory and techniques, screening, brief advice, written materials, a written prescription, referral, baseline and exit consultation, counselling support session(s), PA sessions, education session(s), action for non-attendance, structured follow-up, a PA network, feedback for the referrer, and exit strategies/routes. The PARS models contained a mean of 7 ± 2.9 components (range = 2-13). Forty-five studies reported PA outcome data, 28 reported uptake, and 34 reported adherence rates. Of these, approximately two-thirds of studies reported a positive effect on participant PA levels, with a wide range of uptake (5.7-100.0%) and adherence rates (8.5-95.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity referral scheme components are an important source of complexity. Despite the heterogeneous nature of scheme designs, our synthesis was able to identify 19 components. Further research is required to determine the influence of these components on PARS uptake, adherence, and PA behavior change. To facilitate this, researchers and scheme providers must report PARS designs in more detail. Process evaluations are also needed to examine implementation and increase our understanding of what components lead to which outcomes. This will facilitate future comparisons between PARS and enable the development of models to maximize impact.

The Effectiveness of Interventions and Intervention Components for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Behaviour in People With Persistent Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) interventions on PA and SB levels in people with persistent musculoskeletal pain. We explored the effectiveness of behavior change techniques (BCTs), the use of behavior change theory and non-PA/SB outcomes. Randomized controlled trials of PA or SB interventions for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain were eligible. Twenty-three studies were included. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis demonstrated a small effect for PA post-intervention (Hedge's g = .321, CI .136-.507, P = .001, very low-quality evidence). There was no effect for longer-term follow-up PA (low quality evidence) or SB outcomes (very low-quality evidence). There was a small effect for studies with low risk-of-bias at longer-term follow-up PA. Self-report PA outcomes, PA and education interventions, non-self-selected PA, a combination of supervised and unsupervised PA and a combination of individual and group-based interventions had larger effects. Heterogeneity was moderate to considerable. Risk-of-bias, assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version two), was generally low. Five promising BCTs were identified: "adding objects to the environment," "goal setting (outcome)," "action planning," "monitoring outcome(s) of behaviour by others without feedback" and "feedback on outcome(s) of behaviour." In conclusion, there is evidence for a modest benefit for PA interventions immediately post-intervention, however the quality of evidence is very low. There was no evidence for longer-term follow-up PA or SB. Higher quality studies of PA and SB interventions that use objective measures are needed. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020180260. PERSPECTIVE: This review investigated the effects of physical activity and sedentary behavior interventions on physical activity and sedentary behavior levels in people with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Current evidence shows a modest benefit for interventions on physical activity post-intervention but not at longer-term follow-up or on sedentary behavior at any time-point, however quality of evidence is low to very low.