Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent progressive musculoskeletal disorder, leading to pain and disability. Patient information and education are considered core elements in treatment guidelines for OA; however, there is to our knowledge no evidence-based recommendation on the best approach, content or length on educational programmes in OA. Objective: to develop a brief, patient oriented disease specific multidisciplinary education programme (MEP) to enhance self-management in patients with OA.

Method

Twelve persons (80% female mean age 59 years) diagnosed with hand, hip or knee OA participated in focus group interviews. In the first focus group, six participants were interviewed about their educational needs, attitudes and expectations for the MEP. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and thereafter condensed.

Based on results from focus group interviews, current research evidence, clinical knowledge and patients' experience, a multidisciplinary OA team (dietist, nurse, occupational therapist, pharmacist, physical therapist and rheumatologist) and a patient representative developed a pilot-MEP after having attended a work-shop in health pedagogics. Finally, the pilot-MEP was evaluated by a second focus group consisting of four members from the first focus group and six other experienced patients, before final adjustments were made.

Results

The focus group interviews revealed four important themes: what is OA, treatment options, barriers and coping strategies in performing daily activities, and how to live with osteoarthritis. Identified gaps between patient expectations and experience with the pilot-programme were discussed and adapted into a final MEP. The final MEP was developed as a 3.5 hour educational programme provided in groups of 6-9 patients. All members from the multidisciplinary team are involved in the education programme, including a facilitator who during the provision of the programme ensures that the individual questions are addressed. As part of an ongoing process, a patient representative regularly attends the MEP and gives feedback concerning content and perceived value.

Conclusion

A MEP has been developed to enhance self-management in patients with OA attending a multidisciplinary OA outpatient clinic. The effectiveness of the MEP followed by individual consultations with members of the multidisciplinary team is currently evaluated in a randomised controlled trial with respect to patient satisfaction and functioning.

Background

Few studies have investigated prognostic factors for patients with sciatica, especially for patients treated without surgery. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with non-success after 1 and 2 years of follow-up and to test the prognostic value of surgical treatment for sciatica.

Methods

The study was a prospective multicentre observational study including 466 patients with sciatica and lumbar disc herniation. Potential prognostic factors were sociodemographic characteristics, back pain history, kinesiophobia, emotional distress, pain, comorbidity and clinical examination findings. Study participation did not alter treatment considerations for the patients in the clinics. Patients reported on the questionnaires if surgery of the disc herniation had been performed. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate factors associated with non-success, defined as Maine–Seattle Back Questionnaire score of ≥5 (0–12) (primary outcome) and Sciatica Bothersomeness Index ≥7 (0–24) (secondary outcome).

Results

Rates of non-success were at 1 and 2 years 44% and 39% for the main outcome and 47% and 42% for the secondary outcome. Approximately 1/3 of the patients were treated surgically. For the main outcome variable, in the final multivariate model non-success at 1 year was significantly associated with being male (OR 1.70 [95% CI; 1.06 − 2.73]), smoker (2.06 [1.31 − 3.25]), more back pain (1.0 [1.01 − 1.02]), more comorbid subjective health complaints (1.09 [1.03 − 1.15]), reduced tendon reflex (1.62 [1.03 − 2.56]), and not treated surgically (2.97 [1.75 − 5.04]). Further, factors significantly associated with non-success at 2 years were duration of back problems >; 1 year (1.92 [1.11 − 3.32]), duration of sciatica >; 3 months (2.30 [1.40 − 3.80]), more comorbid subjective health complaints (1.10 [1.03 − 1.17]) and kinesiophobia (1.04 [1.00 − 1.08]). For the secondary outcome variable, in the final multivariate model, more comorbid subjective health complaints, more back pain, muscular weakness at clinical examination, and not treated surgically, were independent prognostic factors for non-success at both 1 and 2 years.

Conclusions

The results indicate that the prognosis for sciatica referred to secondary care is not that good and only slightly better after surgery and that comorbidity should be assessed in patients with sciatica. This calls for a broader assessment of patients with sciatica than the traditional clinical assessment in which mainly the physical symptoms and signs are investigated.

Background

Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS.

Methods

The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18 years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and construct validity (Spearman’s rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

A total of 38 men and 52 women (n = 90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (α 0.90) and the subscales rumination (α 0.83) and helplessness (α 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (α 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74 − 0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0–52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points.

Conclusions

The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.

Background

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is usually self-limiting within 4-6 weeks. Longstanding pain and disability are not predictable from clinical signs or pathoanatomical findings. Pain cognition and physical performance have been shown to improve patients with chronic LBP following neurophysiological education. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether a specific cognitive based education programme for patients with LBP in primary care is more effective than normal care in terms of increased function. The secondary aims of the study are to evaluate whether this intervention also results in earlier return to work, decreased pain, increased patient satisfaction, increased quality-of-life, and cost utility.

Methods/Design

Cluster randomised controlled trial with 20 general practitioners and 20 physiotherapists in primary care as the unit of randomisation. Each practitioner will recruit up to 10 patients, aged 20 to 55 years, with non-specific sub-acute/chronic LBP of more than four weeks but less than 1 year's duration. Practitioners in the intervention arm will provide cognitive patient education intervention in up to four weekly sessions, each lasting 30 minutes. Practitioners in the control arm will provide normal treatment, but have to make four appointments for the patients. Patients, outcome assessors, and study statistician will be blinded to group allocation.

Discussion

We present the rationale and design of an ongoing RCT study that potentially offers an easily implemented treatment strategy for LBP patients in primary care. The results will be available in 2012.

Trial registration

ISRCTN04323845

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent joint disorder with a need for efficient and evidence-based management strategies.

Objectives

The primary purpose of this study is to compare the effects of a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic, including a brief group-based educational programme, with a traditional individual outpatient clinic for patients with hip, knee, hand or generalized OA. A secondary purpose is to investigate the effects of a telephone follow-up call.

Methods

This is a pragmatic randomised single-blind controlled study with a total of 400 patients with hip, knee, hand or generalized OA between 40 and 80 years referred to an outpatient rheumatology hospital clinic. The randomisation is stratified according to the diagnostic subgroups. The experimental group is exposed to a multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention, including a 3.5 hour group-based patient education programme about OA in addition to individual consultations with members of a multidisciplinary team. The control intervention is based on regular care with an individual outpatient consultation with a rheumatologist (treatment as usual). Primary outcomes are patient satisfaction measured at 4 months and cost-effectiveness measured at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are pain and global disease activity measured on a numeric rating scales (NRS), generic and disease specific functioning and disability using Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 3 (WOMAC), the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), and a patient-generated measure of disability (Patient-Specific Functional scale, PSFS). Global perceived effect of change in health status during the study period is also reported. At 4-month follow-up, patients in both groups will be randomly allocated to a 10-minute telephone call or no follow-up ("treatment as usual"). After additional 8 months (12-month follow-up) the four groups will be compared in a secondary analysis with regard to health outcomes and health care costs.

Discussion

This trial will provide results on how multidisciplinary and multifaceted management of patients with OA affects health outcomes and health care costs.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25778426

Background

Shoulder pain is a common complaint in primary health care and has an unfavourable outcome in many patients. The objectives were to identify predictors for pain and disability (SPADI) and work status in patients with subacromial shoulder pain.

Methods

Secondary analyses of data from a randomized clinical controlled trial were performed. Outcome measures were the absolute values of the combined Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and work status 1 year after treatment with supervised exercises (SE) or radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy (rESWT). Predictors of outcome were investigated using multiple linear regression (SPADI) and logistic regression (work status).

Results

104 patients were included. Low education (≤ 12 years), previous shoulder pain, and a high baseline SPADI score predicted poor results with these variables explaining 29.9% of the variance in SPADI score at 1 year. Low education and poor self-reported health status predicted a work status of "not working": Odds Ratio, OR = 4.3(95% CI (1.3 to 14.9)), p = 0.02 for education, and OR = 1.06 (95% CI (1.0 to 1.1)), p = 0.001 for self-reported health status, respectively. Adjustments for age, gender, and treatment group were performed, but did not change the results.

Conclusion

Education was the most consistent predictor of pain and disability, and work status at 1 year follow-up. Also, baseline SPADI score, previous shoulder pain and self-reported health status predicted outcome.

Trial registration

Clinical trials NCT00653081

Background

Obesity is one of the most important risk factors for osteoarthritis (OA) in knee(s). However, the relationship between obesity and OA in hand(s) and hip(s) remains controversial and needs further investigation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of obesity on incident osteoarthritis (OA) in hip, knee, and hand in a general population followed in 10 years.

Methods

A total of 1854 people aged 24–76 years in 1994 participated in a Norwegian study on musculoskeletal pain in both 1994 and 2004. Participants with OA or rheumatoid arthritis in 1994 and those above 74 years in 1994 were excluded, leaving n = 1675 for the analyses. The main outcome measure was OA diagnosis at follow-up based on self-report. Obesity was defined by a body mass index (BMI) of 30 and above.

Results

At 10-years follow-up the incidence rates were 5.8% (CI 4.3–7.3) for hip OA, 7.3% (CI 5.7–9.0) for knee OA, and 5.6% (CI 4.2–7.1) for hand OA. When adjusting for age, gender, work status and leisure time activities, a high BMI (> 30) was significantly associated with knee OA (OR 2.81; 95%CI 1.32–5.96), and a dose-response relationship was found for this association. Obesity was also significantly associated with hand OA (OR 2.59; 1.08–6.19), but not with hip OA (OR 1.11; 0.41–2.97). There was no statistically significant interaction effect between BMI and gender, age or any of the other confounding variables.

Conclusion

A high BMI was significantly associated with knee OA and hand OA, but not with hip OA.