Statistical analysis plan for a pragmatic phase III randomised controlled trial examining behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacements: the PEP-TALK trial

Randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement: the PEP-TALK trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR).

DESIGN

Multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, open, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

SETTING

National Health Service providers in nine English hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

224 individuals aged ≥18 years, undergoing a primary THR or TKR deemed 'moderately inactive' or 'inactive'.

INTERVENTION

Participants received either six, 30 min, weekly, group-based exercise sessions (usual care) or the same six weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30 min cognitive behaviour discussion group aimed at challenging barriers to physical inactivity following surgery (experimental).

RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING

Initial 75 participants were randomised 1:1 before changing the allocation ratio to 2:1 (experimental:usual care). Allocation was based on minimisation, stratifying on comorbidities, operation type and hospital. There was no blinding.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary: 6 and 12-month assessed function, pain, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, psychological distress and quality of life.

RESULTS

Of the 1254 participants assessed for eligibility, 224 were included (139 experimental: 85 usual care). Mean age was 68.4 years (SD: 8.7), 63% were women, 52% underwent TKR. There was no between-group difference in UCLA score (mean difference: -0.03 (95% CI -0.52 to 0.45, p=0.89)). There were no differences observed in any of the secondary outcomes at 6 or 12 months. There were no important adverse events in either group. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the reduced intended sample size (target 260) and reduced intervention compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest attending usual care physiotherapy sessions plus a group-based behaviour change intervention differs to attending usual care physiotherapy alone. As the trial could not reach its intended sample size, nor a proportion of participants receive their intended rehabilitation, this should be interpreted with caution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN29770908.