Physiotherapy - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9
-
Item
-
ItemComparative effect of two educational videos on self-efficacy and kinesiophobia in people with knee osteoarthritis: an online randomised controlled trial(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2022-10)OBJECTIVE: To compare change in self-efficacy for managing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain and kinesiophobia after watching an educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse with a video based on a disease and impairment discourse. DESIGN: Two-arm randomised controlled trial with participants aged ≥45 years with knee pain (n = 589). Participants completed both baseline and follow-up outcomes and watched one randomly-allocated video (12-minute duration) during one 30-45-minute session within a single online survey. The experimental video presented evidence-based knee OA information using design and language that aimed to empower people and focus on activity participation to manage OA, while the control video presented similar information but with a disease and impairment focus. Primary outcome measures were Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale pain subscale (range 0-10) and Brief Fear of Movement Scale for OA (range 6-24). Secondary outcomes were expectations about prognosis and physical activity benefits, perceived importance and motivation to be physically active, knee OA knowledge, hopefulness for the future, level of concern and perceived need for surgery. RESULTS: Compared to control (n = 293), the experimental group (n = 296) showed improved self-efficacy for managing OA pain (mean difference 0.4 [95%CI 0.2, 0.6] units) and reduced kinesiophobia (1.6 [1.1, 2.0] units). The experimental group also demonstrated greater improvements in all secondary outcomes apart from hopefulness, which was high in both groups. CONCLUSION: An educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse improved pain self-efficacy and reduced kinesiophobia in people with knee OA more than a video based on a disease and impairment discourse. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT05156216, Universal trial number U1111-1269-6143.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePatient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool.( 2020-03-16)Abstract Background: There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity. Methods: To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n=9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one. Results: A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen’s Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen’s Kappa estimates ranged from -0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (-0.14, 0.34). Conclusions: The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePatient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool.( 2020-01-31)Abstract Background: There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity. Methods: To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n=9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one. Results: A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen’s Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen’s Kappa estimates ranged from -0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (-0.14, 0.34). Conclusions: The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.
-
ItemPatient experiences with physiotherapy for knee osteoarthritis in Australia-a qualitative study(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2021)OBJECTIVE: Physiotherapists commonly provide non-surgical care for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). It is unknown if patients are receiving high-quality physiotherapy care for their knee OA. This study aimed to explore the experiences of people who had recently received physiotherapy care for their knee OA in Australia and how these experiences aligned with the national Clinical Care Standard for knee OA. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured individual telephone interviews and thematic analysis, where themes/subthemes were inductively derived. Questions were informed by seven quality statements of the OA of the Knee Clinical Care Standard. Interview data were also deductively analysed according to the Standard. SETTING: Participants were recruited from around Australia via Facebook and our research volunteer database. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 24 people with recent experience receiving physiotherapy care for their knee OA. They were required to be aged 45 years or above, had activity-related knee pain and any knee-related morning stiffness lasted no longer than 30 min. Participants were excluded if they had self-reported inflammatory arthritis and/or had undergone knee replacement surgery for the affected knee. RESULTS: Six themes emerged: (1) presented with a pre-existing OA diagnosis (prior OA care from other health professionals; perception of adequate OA knowledge); (2) wide variation in access and provision of physiotherapy care (referral pathways; funding models; individual vs group sessions); (3) seeking physiotherapy care for pain and functional limitations (knee symptoms; functional problems); (4) physiotherapy management focused on function and exercise (assessment of function; various types of exercises prescribed; surgery, medications and injections are for doctors; adjunctive treatments); (5) professional and personalised care (trust and/or confidence; personalised care) and (6) physiotherapy to postpone or prepare for surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients' experiences with receiving physiotherapy care for their knee OA were partly aligned with the standard, particularly regarding comprehensive assessment, self-management, and exercise.
-
ItemPARTNER: a service delivery model to implement optimal primary care management of people with knee osteoarthritis: description of development(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020)OBJECTIVE: Implementation strategies, such as new models of service delivery, are needed to address evidence practice gaps. This paper describes the process of developing and operationalising a new model of service delivery to implement recommended care for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a primary care setting. METHODS: Three development stages occurred concurrently and iteratively. Each stage considered the healthcare context and was informed by stakeholder input. Stage 1 involved the design of a new model of service delivery (PARTNER). Stage 2 developed a behavioural change intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) using the behavioural change wheel framework. In stage 3, the 'Care Support Team' component of the service delivery model was operationalised. RESULTS: The focus of PARTNER is to provide patients with education, exercise and/or weight loss advice, and facilitate effective self-management through behavioural change support. Stage 1 model design: based on clinical practice guidelines, known evidence practice gaps in current care, chronic disease management frameworks, input from stakeholders and the opportunities and constraints afforded by the Australian primary care context, we developed the PARTNER service-delivery model. The key components are: (1) an effective GP consultation and (2) follow-up and ongoing care provided remotely (telephone/email/online resources) by a 'Care Support Team'. Stage 2 GP behavioural change intervention: a multimodal behavioural change intervention was developed comprising a self-audit/feedback activity, online professional development and desktop software to provide decision support, patient information resources and a referral mechanism to the 'Care Support Team'. Stage 3 operationalising the 'care support team'-staff recruited and trained in evidence-based knee OA management and behavioural change methodology. CONCLUSION: The PARTNER model is the result of a comprehensive implementation strategy development process using evidence, behavioural change theory and intervention development guidelines. Technologies for scalable delivery were harnessed and new primary evidence was generated as part of the process.Trial registration number ACTRN12617001595303 (UTN U1111-1197-4809).
-
ItemPatient-reported quality indicators to evaluate physiotherapy care for hip and/or knee osteoarthritis- development and evaluation of the QUIPA tool(BMC, 2020-04-01)BACKGROUND: There is no physiotherapy-specific quality indicator tool available to evaluate physiotherapy care for people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to develop a patient-reported quality indicator tool (QUIPA) for physiotherapy management of hip and knee OA and to assess its reliability and validity. METHODS: To develop the QUIPA tool, quality indicators were initially developed based on clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy practice and those of an existing generic OA quality indicator tool. Draft items were then further refined using patient focus groups. Test-retest reliability, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity were then evaluated. Sixty-five people with hip and/or knee OA attended a single physiotherapy consultation and completed the QUIPA tool one, twelve- and thirteen-weeks after. Physiotherapists (n = 9) completed the tool post-consultation. Patient test-retest reliability was assessed between weeks twelve and thirteen. Construct validity was assessed with three predefined hypotheses and criterion validity was based on agreement between physiotherapists and participants at week one. RESULTS: A draft list of 23 clinical guideline recommendations most relevant to physiotherapy was developed. Following feedback from three patient focus groups, the final QUIPA tool contained 18 items (three subscales) expressed in lay language. The test-retest reliability estimates (Cohen's Kappa) for single items ranged from 0.30-0.83 with observed agreement of 64-94%. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Assessment and Management Planning subscale was 0.70 (0.54, 0.81), Core Recommended Treatments subscale was 0.84 (0.75, 0.90), Adjunctive Treatments subscale was 0.70 (0.39, 0.87) and for the total QUIPA score was 0.80 (0.69, 0.88). All predefined hypotheses regarding construct validity were confirmed. However, agreement between physiotherapists and participants for single items showed large measurement error (Cohen's Kappa estimates ranged from - 0.04-0.59) with the ICC (95% CI) for the total score being 0.11 (- 0.14, 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: The QUIPA tool showed acceptable test-retest reliability for subscales and total score but inadequate reliability for individual items. Construct validity was confirmed but criterion validity for individual items, subscales and the total score was inadequate. Further research is needed to refine the QUIPA tool to improve its clinimetric properties before implementation.
-
ItemProtocol for the process and feasibility evaluations of a new model of primary care service delivery for managing pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) using a mixed methods approach(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2020-02)INTRODUCTION: This protocol outlines the rationale, design and methods for the process and feasibility evaluations of the primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) study. PARTNER is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a new model of service delivery (the PARTNER model) against 'usual care'. PARTNER is designed to encourage greater uptake of key evidence-based non-surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. The intervention supports general practitioners (GPs) to gain an understanding of the best management options available through online professional development. Their patients receive telephone advice and support for OA management by a centralised, multidisciplinary 'Care Support Team'. We will conduct concurrent process and feasibility evaluations to understand the implementation of this new complex health intervention, identify issues for consideration when interpreting the effectiveness outcomes and develop recommendations for future implementation, cost effectiveness and scalability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The UK Medical Research Council Framework for undertaking a process evaluation of complex interventions and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks inform the design of these evaluations. We use a mixed-methods approach including analysis of survey data, administrative records, consultation records and semistructured interviews with GPs and their enrolled patients. The analysis will examine fidelity and dose of the intervention, observations of trial setup and implementation and the quality of the care provided. We will also examine details of 'usual care'. The semistructured interviews will be analysed using thematic and content analysis to draw out themes around implementation and acceptability of the model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The primary and substudy protocols have been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (2016/959 and 2019/503). Our findings will be disseminated to national and international partners and stakeholders, who will also assist with wider dissemination of our results across all levels of healthcare. Specific findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and via training for healthcare professionals delivering OA management programmes. This evaluation is crucial to explaining the PARTNER study results, and will be used to determine the feasibility of rolling-out the intervention in an Australian healthcare context. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001595303; Pre-results.
-
ItemBetter Knee, Better Me™: effectiveness of two scalable health care interventions supporting self-management for knee osteoarthritis - protocol for a randomized controlled trial(BMC, 2020-03-12)BACKGROUND: Although education, exercise, and weight loss are recommended for management of knee osteoarthritis, the additional benefits of incorporating weight loss strategies into exercise interventions have not been well investigated. The aim of this study is to compare, in a private health insurance setting, the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a remotely-delivered, evidence- and theory-informed, behaviour change intervention targeting exercise and self-management (Exercise intervention), with the same intervention plus active weight management (Exercise plus weight management intervention), and with an information-only control group for people with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight or obese. METHODS: Three-arm, pragmatic parallel-design randomised controlled trial involving 415 people aged ≥45 and ≤ 80 years, with body mass index ≥28 kg/m2 and < 41 kg/m2 and painful knee osteoarthritis. Recruitment is Australia-wide amongst Medibank private health insurance members. All three groups receive access to a bespoke website containing information about osteoarthritis and self-management. Participants in the Exercise group also receive six consultations with a physiotherapist via videoconferencing over 6 months, including prescription of a strengthening exercise and physical activity program, advice about management, and additional educational resources. The Exercise plus weight management group receive six consultations with a dietitian via videoconferencing over 6 months, which include a very low calorie ketogenic diet with meal replacements and resources to support behaviour change, in addition to the interventions of the Exercise group. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are self-reported knee pain and physical function at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include weight, physical activity levels, quality of life, global rating of change, satisfaction with care, knee surgery and/or appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon, and willingness to undergo surgery. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness of intervention components. Cost-effectiveness of each intervention will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic study will determine whether a scalable remotely-delivered service combining weight management with exercise is more effective than a service with exercise alone, and with both compared to an information-only control group. Findings will inform development and implementation of future remotely-delivered services for people with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000930280 (01/06/2018).