Collaborative model of care between Orthopaedics and allied healthcare professionals trial (CONNACT) - a feasibility study in patients with knee osteoarthritis using a mixed method approach

Effects of multidisciplinary teamwork in non-hospital settings on healthcare and patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that multidisciplinary teams can improve health outcomes for patients with chronic conditions, enhance the quality and coordination of care, and promote teamwork among staff in hospital settings. However, their effectiveness in non-hospital settings remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of multidisciplinary teams on patients with chronic conditions, health professionals, and healthcare in non-hospital settings.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EconLit, OpenGrey, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WanFang for randomised controlled trials published before March 2025. Narrative syntheses were used to synthesise the characteristics of multidisciplinary teams, interventions, and effects. Data were statistically pooled using both random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses to synthesize the outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were analyzed, with a total of 8186 participants. Nurses, general practitioners, and specialists were the most common members of the multidisciplinary teams. Staffing models, shared care and role expansion or task shifting are the most common multidisciplinary teamwork interventions. Narrative syntheses revealed improvements in self-management, self-efficiency, satisfaction, health behaviours, and knowledge. A meta-analysis found a significant reduction in hospitalisation days for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (MD=-0.66, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.26, I2 = 0%) and significant improvement in quality of life for patients with chronic heart failure (MD=-4.63, 95% CI: -8.67 to -0.60, I2 = 0%). There is no consistent evidence of other indicators of this effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary teamwork can improve patient-reported outcomes for patients with chronic conditions in non-hospital settings, but the effects on clinical outcomes, health utilisation, and costs are not evident.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO on January 21, 2019, with the registration number CRD42019121109.

Insufficient structure and reporting of process evaluations of complex interventions for musculoskeletal conditions in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To explore how process evaluation of complex interventions alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in musculoskeletal conditions are conducted.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Studies were included if they reported process evaluation conducted alongside RCTs, within the main report or as separate reports, that assessed process evaluation of RCTs of complex nonsurgical and nonpharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. We performed a descriptive analysis of the included studies based on process evaluation parameters.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 61 studies from 17 countries. Our findings showed studies used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods for process evaluations, typically reporting within the main RCT. Most studies were conducted in primary care settings. Only a few studies (16%) included a theoretical model to guide their process evaluation. Studies reported reach (8%), patients' and clinicians' perceptions of the interventions (44% and 8%, respectively), treatment fidelity and adherence (52% and 43%, respectively), training of patients and clinicians (eg, workshops, manuals and additional training) (54%), how the integration of process evaluation and outcome evaluation findings was performed (68%), barriers to perform the process evaluation (2%), and the strengths and weaknesses of the process evaluation (65%).

CONCLUSION

Reporting of process evaluations within RCTs is insufficiently reported. Researchers rarely adopted a theoretical model or framework to guide their process evaluation. Studies used a variety of methods to conduct process evaluations. We identified barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of methods used for assessing process evaluation as reported by authors from studies included in this review.

The structure, process and outcomes of interprofessional care among knee osteoarthritis patients: a scoping review

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common chronic condition that leads to joint pain and disability among older adults. An interprofessional collaborative approach has nowadays been widely advocated in knee OA management although little is known about the characteristics of care, roles and responsibilities of healthcare providers and how they collaborate as a team to optimise treatment outcomes. The Donabedian structure-process-outcome framework was used in the review. Six databases were searched from February 2013 to March 2023. A total of 26 articles that met our inclusion criteria were reported. All studies (n = 26) identified the physiotherapist as a critical member of the interprofessional team. Several studies (n = 5) have offered training to healthcare providers in the management of knee OA. The intervention components in most studies included disease-based education (n = 21) and exercise therapy (n = 16). A comprehensive understanding of the existing interprofessional knee OA care in this review could potentially assist the government and healthcare organisations in developing interprofessional practice guidelines and designing intervention programmes that maximise their benefits.

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.

Collaborative model of care between orthopaedics and allied healthcare professionals (CONNACT) in knee osteoarthritis: Effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized controlled trial of a community-based, multidisciplinary, stratified intervention

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of the Collaborative Model of Care between Orthopaedics and Allied Healthcare Professionals (CONNACT), a community-based, stratified, multidisciplinary intervention consisting of exercise, education, psychological and nutrition delivered through a chronic care model to usual hospital care in adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Pragmatic, parallel-arm, single-blinded superiority RCT trial. Community-dwelling, ambulant adults with knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade > 1; Knee Injury and OA Outcome Score (KOOS4) ≤75) were enrolled. Primary outcome was KOOS4 at 12-months; secondary outcomes included: quality of life, physical performance measures, symptom satisfaction, psychological outcomes, dietary habits, and global perceived effect. Intention-to-treat analysis using generalized linear model (GLM) and regression modeling were conducted. Economic evaluation through a societal approach was embedded.

RESULTS

110 participants (55 control, 55 intervention) were randomized. No between-group difference found for the primary outcome (MD [95%CI]: -1.86 [-9.11. 5.38]), although both groups demonstrated within-group improvement over 12-months. Among the secondary outcomes, the CONNACT group demonstrated superior dietary change (12 months) and physical performance measures (3 months), and global perceived effect (6 months). While there was no between-group difference in total cost, significant productivity gains (reduced indirect cost) were seen in the CONNACT group.

CONCLUSION

CONNACT was not superior to usual care at 1 year. Further efforts are needed to understand the underlying contextual and implementation factors in order to further improve and refine such community-based, stratified care models moving forward.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809975. Registered January 18, 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03809975.

Nutrition and movement to improve quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis: the NUMOQUA study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) has long been considered as a degenerative disease of cartilage tissue resulting from bodily wear and tear. However, there is accumulating evidence that inflammation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of OA. In knee OA, the most common form of OA, exercise therapy as an effective component of early treatment addresses functional deficits, pain and inflammation. Since inflammation is critical for the development and progress of OA, anti-inflammatory therapies must be combined strategically. In the course of the NUMOQUA project, an anti-inflammatory therapeutic diet named 'Austrian Osteoarthritis Cuisine' was developed. It is based on the framework of the New Nordic Diet combined with the food-based dietary guidelines of Austria, the guidelines for OA, the Austrian food culture and the principles of a sustainable diet. The present study examines the implementation of the 'Austrian OA Cuisine' combined with the evidence-based training programme GLA:D® (Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark) in Austrian patients with knee OA and the effects on quality of life, nutritional and inflammatory status, as well as oxidative stress parameters.

METHODS

A total of 60 participants aged 50 to 75 with knee OA will be included and randomly assigned either to the intervention group or the control group. All participants will undergo the GLA:D® programme in the first 6 weeks. Additionally, the intervention group will receive nutritional group training and individual nutritional counselling on the 'Austrian OA Cuisine' over 9 months. The control group will receive general information about a healthy lifestyle. Measurements at baseline and at 4 follow-up dates include nutritional, inflammatory and oxidative stress markers. Furthermore, anthropometric, behavioural and clinical data will be obtained. The recruitment process lasted from autumn 2022 to January 2024, followed by the intervention until October 2024.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of OA is expected to increase in the future due to ongoing demographic changes and rising obesity rates. The expected results will provide important evidence on whether this interdisciplinary therapeutic approach could be a new, cost-effective and sustainable strategy to address the disease process of OA without negative side effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05955300. Date of registration: 23rd of October 2023.

Heat and Acupuncture to Manage Osteoarthritis of the Knee (HARMOKnee): Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of most prevalent and fastest-growing causes of pain, impaired mobility, and poor quality of life in the rapidly aging population worldwide. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly acupuncture, and a lack of KOA practice guidelines that are tailored to unique population demographics and tropical climates.

OBJECTIVE

Our HARMOKnee (Heat and Acupuncture to Manage Osteoarthritis of the Knee) trial aims to address these gaps by evaluating the short- and medium-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with heat therapy in addition to standard care, compared to standard care alone. Through a robust process and economic evaluation, we aim to inform evidence-based practice for patients with KOA to facilitate the large-scale implementation of a comprehensive and holistic model of care that harmonizes elements of Western medicine and TCM. We hypothesize that acupuncture with heat therapy as an adjunct to standard care is clinically more effective than standard care alone.

METHODS

A multicenter, pragmatic, parallel-arm, single-blinded, effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized controlled trial will be conducted. We intend to recruit 100 patients with KOA randomized to either the control arm (standard care only) or intervention arm (acupuncture with heat therapy, in addition to standard care). The inclusion criteria are being a community ambulator and having primary KOA, excluding patients with secondary arthritis or previous knee replacements. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include psychological, physical, quality of life, satisfaction, and global outcome measures at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. A mixed method approach through an embedded process evaluation will facilitate large-scale implementation. An economic evaluation will be performed to assess financial sustainability.

RESULTS

Patient enrollment has been ongoing since August 2022. The recruitment process is anticipated to conclude by July 2024, and the findings will be analyzed and publicized as they are obtained. As of November 6, 2023, our patient enrollment stands at 65 individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our HARMOKnee study will contribute substantial evidence to the current body of literature regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for KOA. Additionally, we aim to facilitate the creation of standardized national guidelines for evidence-based practice that are specifically tailored to our unique population demographics. Furthermore, we seek to promote the adoption and integration of acupuncture and heat therapy into existing treatment models.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05507619; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05507619.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54352.

Longer-term quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implementing a model of care for osteoarthritis: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over 12 months after implementing a structured model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary healthcare as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

In this pragmatic cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a stepped-wedge cohort design, we recruited 40 general practitioners (GPs), 37 physiotherapists (PTs), and 393 patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA from six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The model included the delivery of a 3-hour patient education and 8-12 weeks individually tailored exercise programs, and interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. At 12 months, the patient-reported quality of care was assessed by the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (16 items, pass rate 0-100%, 100%=best). Costs were obtained from patient-reported and national register data. Cost-effectiveness at the healthcare perspective was evaluated using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB).

RESULTS

Of 393 patients, 109 were recruited during the control periods (control group) and 284 were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). At 12 months the intervention group reported statistically significant higher quality of care compared to the control group (59% vs. 40%; mean difference: 17.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1, 24.0)). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the model of care resulted in quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost-savings compared to usual care with mean INMB €2020 (95% CI 611, 3492) over 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that implementing the model of care for OA in primary healthcare, improved quality of care and showed cost-effectiveness over 12 months compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Collaborative model of care between Orthopaedics and allied healthcare professionals in knee osteoarthritis (CONNACT): study protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized control trial

Background

Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of global disability. The Collaborative Model of Care between Orthopaedics and Allied Healthcare Professionals (CONNACT) Model of Care (MoC) was developed by optimizing evidence-based non-surgical treatments to deliver value-based care for people with knee OA. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical effectiveness of the CONNACT MoC (3 months) compared to usual care. The secondary aims are: a) To determine the cost-effectiveness and b) To develop an evaluation and implementation framework to inform large scale implementation for this MoC.

Methodology

Type 1 Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Trial using an explanatory sequential mixed-method approach. The study consists of 3 components. The first component is the pragmatic, parallel-arm, single-blinded randomized control trial. Inclusion criteria are patients with knee OA based on the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria with radiographic severity of greater than Kellgren-Lawrence 1, and Knee Injury and OA Outcome Score (KOOS₄) of equal or less than 75. Exclusion criteria include other forms of arthritis, history of previous knee arthroplasty or wheelchair-bound patient. KOOS₄ is the primary outcome measure at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. Secondary outcomes include KOOS individual subscales, quality of life scoring, functional performance, global, diet and psychological related outcomes. The second component is an economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the CONNACT MoC using a societal perspective. The third component is an implementation and evaluation framework using process evaluation under the RE-AIM framework using a mixed-method approach. Sample size of 100 patients has been calculated.

Discussion

CONNACT MoC is a complex intervention. In line with the MRC guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions, a pilot feasibility study was completed and a comprehensive approach including an RCT, economic evaluation and process evaluation is described in this study protocol. Results from this study will help clinicians, healthcare administrators and policymakers guide the sustainable and effective implementation of the CONNACT MoC for knee OA and serve as a basis for similar multidisciplinary MoC for chronic degenerative musculoskeletal conditions to be developed.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03809975. Registered January 182,019.