Physiotherapy - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWalking-related knee contact forces and associations with knee pain across people with mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2022-06)OBJECTIVE: To investigate knee contact forces (KCFs), and their relationships with knee pain, across grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) severity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of 164 participants with medial knee OA. Radiographic severity was classified as mild (grade 2), moderate (grade 3) or severe (grade 4) using the Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) scale. Walking knee pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale. External knee adduction moment (external KAM) and internal muscle forces were used to calculate medial, lateral and total KCFs using a musculoskeletal computational model. Force-time series across stance phase of gait were compared across KL grades using Statistical Parametric Mapping. Associations between KCFs and pain across KL grades were assessed using linear models. RESULTS: Medial KCFs during early and middle stance were higher in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2. In contrast, lateral KCFs were higher in those with KL2 compared to KL3 and KL4 in middle to late stance. The external loading component (i.e., KAM) of the medial KCF during middle to late stance was also greater in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2, whereas the internal (i.e., muscle) component was greater in those with KL3 and KL4 compared to KL3 during early stance. There were no associations between medial KCF and knee pain in any KL grade. CONCLUSIONS: Medial and lateral KCFs differ between mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee OA but are not associated with knee pain severity for any radiographic OA grade.
-
ItemEffect of motion control versus neutral walking footwear on pain associated with lateral tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: a comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022-09)OBJECTIVES: To determine if motion control walking shoes are superior to neutral walking shoes in reducing knee pain on walking in people with lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Participant-blinded and assessor-blinded, comparative effectiveness, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: People with symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral OA from the community and our volunteer database. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either motion control or neutral shoes and advised to wear them >6 hours/day over 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in average knee pain on walking over the previous week (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity. RESULTS: We planned to recruit 110 participants (55 per arm) but ceased recruitment at 40 (n=18 motion control shoes, n=22 neutral shoes) due to COVID-19-related impacts. All 40 participants completed 6-month outcomes. There was no evidence that motion control shoes were superior to neutral shoes for the primary outcome of pain (mean between-group difference 0.4 NRS units, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7) nor for any secondary outcome. The number of participants experiencing any adverse events was similar between groups (motion control shoes: n=5, 28%; neutral shoes: n=4, 18.2%) and were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Motion control shoes were not superior to neutral shoes in improving knee pain on walking in symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral joint OA. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments in this important but under-researched knee OA subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001864213.
-
ItemExpert-Moderated Peer-to-Peer Online Support Group for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study(JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC, 2022-01)BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major problem globally. First-line management comprises education and self-management strategies. Online support groups may be a low-cost method of facilitating self-management. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized controlled pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the study design and implementation of an evidence-informed, expert-moderated, peer-to-peer online support group (My Knee Community) for people with knee OA. The impacts on psychological determinants of self-management, selected self-management behaviors, and health outcomes were secondary investigations. METHODS: This mixed methods study evaluated study feasibility (participant recruitment, retention, and costs), experimental intervention feasibility (acceptability and fidelity to the proposed design, including perceived benefit, satisfaction, and member engagement), psychological determinants (eg, self-efficacy and social support), behavioral measures, health outcomes, and harms. Of a total of 186, 63 (33.9%) participants (41/63, 65% experimental and 22/63, 35% control) with self-reported knee OA were recruited from 186 volunteers. Experimental group participants were provided membership to My Knee Community, which already had existing nonstudy members, and were recommended a web-based education resource (My Joint Pain). The control group received the My Joint Pain website recommendation only. Participants were not blinded to their group allocation or the study interventions. Participant-reported data were collected remotely using web-based questionnaires. A total of 10 experimental group participants also participated in semistructured interviews. The transcribed interview data and all forum posts by the study participants were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Study feasibility was supported by acceptable levels of retention; however, there were low levels of engagement with the support group by participants: 15% (6/41) of participants did not log in at all; the median number of times visited was 4 times per participant; only 29% (12/41) of participants posted, and there were relatively low levels of activity overall on the forum. This affected the results for satisfaction (overall mean 5.9/10, SD 2.7) and perceived benefit (17/31, 55%: yes). There were no differences among groups for quantitative outcomes. The themes discussed in the interviews were connections and support, information and advice, and barriers and facilitators. Qualitative data suggest that there is potential for people to derive benefit from connecting with others with knee OA by receiving support and assisting with unmet informational needs. CONCLUSIONS: Although a large-scale study is feasible, the intervention implementation was considered unsatisfactory because of low levels of activity and engagement by members. We recommend that expectations about the support group need to be made clear from the outset. Additionally, the platform design needs to be more engaging and rewarding, and membership should only be offered to people willing to share their personal stories and who are interested in learning from the experiences of others. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001230145; http://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377958.
-
ItemPodiatry Intervention Versus Usual General Practitioner Care for Symptomatic Radiographic Osteoarthritis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint: A Randomized Clinical Feasibility Study(WILEY, 2021-02)OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a clinical trial comparing a podiatry intervention to usual general practitioner (GP) care for people with first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A 2-arm, participant- and assessor-blinded, randomized feasibility study was conducted over 12 weeks. Participants were age >40 years and had pain and radiographic OA in the first MTP joint. Participants in the podiatry group had 3 visits and received foot orthoses, exercise, manual therapy, and advice. Participants in the GP group had 1 visit and received medication advice/prescription and the same advice as the podiatry group. Primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (recruitment, attendance, and retention rates; percentage of prescribed exercise sessions completed; orthoses wear hours/day; treatment fidelity). Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, function, satisfaction, adherence, adverse events, and dropouts. RESULTS: A total of 236 people were screened, and 30 (13%) were included. All except 1 participant in the podiatry group attended the required clinical visits, and retention rates were 93% (podiatry group) and 80% (GP group). Participants completed 66% of the exercise sessions and wore orthoses for an average of 6.3 hours/day. Adherence to medication use was 5.3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Both treatment approaches improved pain and function by clinically important differences at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: A clinical trial comparing a podiatry intervention to usual GP care for people with first MTP joint OA is feasible. Given the improvements in pain and function observed, a larger appropriately powered clinical trial is warranted to evaluate the superiority of one treatment approach over the other.