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

Making sense of osteoarthritis: A narrative review

People make sense of osteoarthritis (OA) by drawing on information, beliefs, and knowledge. This narrative review summarises diverse qualitative and quantitative research investigating beliefs and knowledge about OA and the impact these have on behaviour and outcomes. It synthesises evidence and highlights key actions clinicians can take to support people to make sense of OA in helpful ways. Beliefs about OA inform the behaviour of those living with OA and the behaviour of clinicians caring for people with OA. Beliefs about OA often focus on joint degradation and inevitable progression. These impairment-focused fatalistic beliefs can result in reduced offer of, or engagement in, active management strategies. Alternative views focus on health as part of a dynamic ecosystem where people are healthy when they can participate in activities they value. These beliefs are associated with increased engagement in self-management and lifestyle-based interventions. Clinician actions that support people to make sense of OA ways that align with helpful behaviours and support participation in valued activities represent key opportunities to improve health and well-being.

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.