Is healing an option to aid sustainable healthcare futures?

It is becoming ever more apparent that the current model of healthcare delivery within developed countries is not sustainable. There are at least two major problems: the continuing development of expensive, high-technology approaches to diagnosis and treatment, which are putting an unsustainable economic burden on healthcare organisations (1); and the rapidly increasing carbon footprint of modern healthcare delivery systems, resulting in an unsustainable burden on the planet (2). Many possible answers to these problems are being considered by medical bodies including the British Medical Association (3). In addition, politicians are turning their attention to prevention, and are trying to move the responsibility for maintaining good health away from healthcare workers, and back to individuals and communities. For example, Public Health England is developing work on ‘salutogenesis’ (the generation of health) in addition to working on the prevention of disease (4,5). Over the last few years there has also been a burgeoning interest in what might be called ‘low-tech/high talk’ interventions such as the ‘walk and talk for mental health’ movement (6) and arts for healthcare (7). This has been accompanied by an increasing appetite amongst the public for complementary and alternative approaches to medicine (CAM)

MOBILE and the provision of total joint replacement

Modern joint replacements have been available for 45 years, but we still do not have clear indications for these interventions, and we do not know how to optimize the outcome for patients who agree to have them done. The MOBILE programme has been investigating these issues in relation to primary total hip and knee joint replacements, using mixed methods research

Rest Pain and Movement-Evoked Pain as Unique Constructs in Hip and Knee Replacements

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information about the extent to which the association between preoperative and chronic postoperative pain is mediated via pain‐on‐movement or pain‐at‐rest. We explored these associations in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: A total of 322 and 316 patients receiving THR and TKR, respectively, were recruited into a single‐center UK cohort (Arthroplasty Pain Experience) study. Preoperative, acute postoperative, and 12‐month pain severity was measured using self‐reported pain instruments. The association between preoperative/acute pain and chronic postoperative pain was investigated using structural equation modeling (SEM). RESULTS: Patients with high levels of preoperative pain were more likely to report chronic pain after THR (β = 0.195, P = 0.02) and TKR (β = 0.749, P < 0.0001). Acute postoperative pain‐on‐movement was not associated with chronic pain after TKR or THR after adjusting for preoperative pain; however, acute pain‐at‐rest was associated with chronic pain after THR (β = 0.20, P < 0.0002) but not TKR after adjusting for preoperative pain. Analysis of pain‐at‐rest and pain‐on‐movement highlighted differences between THR and TKR patients. Chronic pain‐at‐rest after THR was weakly associated with pain‐at‐rest during the preoperative (β = 0.11, P = 0.068) and acute postoperative period (β = 0.21, P < 0.0001). In contrast, chronic pain‐on‐movement after TKR was strongly associated with the severity of pain‐on‐movement during the preoperative period (β = 0.51, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SEM illustrated the different patterns of association between measures of pain over time in patients undergoing THR and TKR for osteoarthritis. These findings highlight the importance of future work that explores the mechanisms underlying pain‐on‐movement and pain‐at‐rest

Trajectories of Pain and Function after Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty:The ADAPT Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Pain and function improve dramatically in the first three months after hip and knee arthroplasty but the trajectory after three months is less well described. It is also unclear how pre-operative pain and function influence short- and long-term recovery. We explored the trajectory of change in function and pain until and beyond 3-months post-operatively and the influence of pre-operative self-reported symptoms. METHODS:The study was a prospective cohort study of 164 patients undergoing primary hip (n = 80) or knee (n = 84) arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. Self-reported measures of pain and function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index were collected pre-operatively and at 3 and 12 months post-operatively. Hip and knee arthroplasties were analysed separately, and patients were split into two groups: those with high or low symptoms pre-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used for each outcome (pain and function), and the trajectories of change were charted (0-3 months and 3-12 months). RESULTS:Hip: Most improvement occurred within the first 3 months following hip surgery and patients with worse pre-operative scores had greater changes. The mean changes observed between 3 and twelve months were statistically insignificant. One year after surgery, patients with worse pre-operative scores had post-operative outcomes similar to those observed among patients with less severe pre-operative symptoms. Knee: Most improvement occurred in the first 3 months following knee surgery with no significant change thereafter. Despite greater mean change during the first three months, patients with worse pre-operative scores had not 'caught-up' with those with less severe pre-operative symptoms 12 months after their surgery. CONCLUSION:Most symptomatic improvement occurred within the first 3 months after surgery with no significant change between 3-12 months. Further investigations are now required to determine if patients with severe symptoms at the time of their knee arthroplasty have a different pre-surgical history than those with less severe symptoms and if they could benefit from earlier surgical intervention and tailored rehabilitation to achieve better post-operative patient-reported outcomes

Help-seeking behaviour among people living with chronic hip or knee pain in the community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A large proportion of people living with hip or knee pain do not consult health care professionals. Pain severity is often believed to be the main reason for help seeking in this population; however the evidence for this is contradictory. This study explores the importance of several potential risk factors on help seeking across different practitioner groups, among adults living with chronic hip or knee pain in a large community sample.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Health care utilization, defined as having seen a family doctor (GP) during the past 12 months; or an allied health professional (AHP) or alternative therapist during the past 3 months, was assessed in a community based sample aged 35 or over and reporting pain in hip or knee. Adjusted odds ratios were determined for social deprivation, rurality, pain severity, mobility, anxiety/depression, co-morbidities, and body mass index.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1119 persons reporting hip or knee pain, 52% had pain in both sites.</p> <p>Twenty-five percent of them had seen a doctor only, 3% an AHP only, and 4% an alternative therapist only. Thirteen percent had seen more than one category of health care professionals, and 55% had not seen any health care professional. In the multivariate model, factors associated with consulting a GP were mobility problems (OR 2.62 (1.64-4.17)), urban living (OR 2.40 (1.14-5.04) and pain severity (1.28 (1.13-1.44)). There was also some evidence that obesity was associated with increased consultation (OR 1.72 (1.00-2.93)). Factors were similar for consultation with a combination of several health care professionals. In contrast, seeing an alternative therapist was negatively associated with pain severity, anxiety and mobility problems (adjusting for age and sex).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Disability appears to be a more important determinant of help-seeking than pain severity or anxiety and depression, for adults with chronic pain in hip or knee. The determinants of seeking help from alternative practitioners are different from determinants of consulting GPs, AHPs or a combination of different health care providers.</p

Exploring the relationships between International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) constructs of Impairment, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction in people with osteoarthritis prior to joint replacement

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) proposes three main constructs, impairment (I), activity limitation (A) and participation restriction (P). The ICF model allows for all paths between the constructs to be explored, with significant paths likely to vary for different conditions. The relationships between I, A and P have been explored in some conditions but not previously in people with osteoarthritis prior to joint replacement. The aim of this paper is to examine these relationships using separate measures of each construct and structural equation modelling.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A geographical cohort of 413 patients with osteoarthritis about to undergo hip and knee joint replacement completed the Aberdeen measures of Impairment, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction (Ab-IAP). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the three factor (I, A, P) measurement model. Structural equation modelling was used to explore the I, A and P pathways in the ICF model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was support from confirmatory factor analysis for the three factor I, A, P measurement model. The structural equation model had good fit [S-B Chi-square = 439.45, df = 149, CFI robust = 0.91, RMSEA robust = 0.07] and indicated significant pathways between I and A (standardised coefficient = 0.76 p < 0.0001) and between A and P (standardised coefficient = 0.75 p < 0.0001). However, the path between I and P was not significant (standardised coefficient = 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The significant pathways suggest that treatments and interventions aimed at reducing impairment, such as joint replacement, may only affect P indirectly, through A, however, longitudinal data would be needed to establish this.</p

Osteoarthritis: 119. The Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy with and without Manual Therapy for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Background: Current evidence indicates that exercise therapy (ET) has a short and medium-term benefit for hip osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence is inconclusive regarding the effect of manual therapy (MT). The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial was to determine the effectiveness of ET with and without MT on clinical outcomes for individuals with hip OA. A secondary aim was to ascertain the effect of an 8-week waiting period on outcomes. Methods: 131 men and women with hip OA recruited in four hospitals were initially randomised to one of three groups: ET (n = 45), a combination of ET and MT (n = 43) and wait-list control (n = 43). The two intervention groups underwent individualised ET or ET/MT for 8 weeks. Patients in the control group waited 8 weeks and were randomised to receive either ET or ET/MT after 9 week follow-up, and pooled with original treatment group data: ET (n = 66) and ET/ MT (n = 65). All participants were followed up at 9 and 18 weeks and the control group was reassessed at 27 weeks (18 weeks post-treatment) by the same blinded assessor. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Other outcomes included sit-to-stand, 50-foot walk test, pain severity, hip range of motion (ROM), anxiety, depression, quality of life (QOL), analgesic usage, physical activity, patient-perceived change and patient satisfaction. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to determine within-group change and between-group differences for the three groups at baseline and 9 weeks, and the two treatment groups at baseline, 9 and 18 weeks. Results: Eight patients (6.1%) were lost to follow-up at 9 weeks and 19 (14.5%) were lost to follow-up by 18 weeks. Both ET (n = 66) and ET/MT groups (n = 65) showed significant within-group improvements in WOMAC, pain severity, sit-to-stand and HROM measures at 9 weeks, which were still evident at 18 weeks. There was no significant within-group change in anxiety, depression, QOL, analgesic usage, 50-foot walk test or physical activity. There was no significant difference between the two intervention groups for any of the outcomes. Regarding the results of the original ET, ET/MT and control group allocation, there was a significant improvement in one or both ET and ET/MT groups compared with the control group in the same outcomes, as well as patient perceived improvement at 9 weeks. There was no significant difference between the three groups in analgesic usage, WOMAC stiffness subscale, sit-to-stand and 50 foot walk tests, QOL and physical activity. There was an overall deterioration in anxiety and depression scores. Conclusions: The addition of MT to an 8 week programme of ET for hip OA resulted in similar improvements in pain, function and ROM at 9 and 18 weeks. The significant improvement which occurred in the same outcomes in the two treatment groups compared with a wait-list control of 8 weeks has implications for waiting list management Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Measuring the ICF components of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction: an item analysis using classical test theory and item response theory

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) proposes three main health outcomes, Impairment (I), Activity Limitation (A) and Participation Restriction (P), but good measures of these constructs are needed The aim of this study was to use both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) methods to carry out an item analysis to improve measurement of these three components in patients having joint replacement surgery mainly for osteoarthritis (OA). A geographical cohort of patients about to undergo lower limb joint replacement was invited to participate. Five hundred and twenty four patients completed ICF items that had been previously identified as measuring only a single ICF construct in patients with osteoarthritis. There were 13 I, 26 A and 20 P items. The SF-36 was used to explore the construct validity of the resultant I, A and P measures. The CTT and IRT analyses were run separately to identify items for inclusion or exclusion in the measurement of each construct. The results from both analyses were compared and contrasted. Overall, the item analysis resulted in the removal of 4 I items, 9 A items and 11 P items. CTT and IRT identified the same 14 items for removal, with CTT additionally excluding 3 items, and IRT a further 7 items. In a preliminary exploration of reliability and validity, the new measures appeared acceptable. New measures were developed that reflect the ICF components of Impairment, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction for patients with advanced arthritis. The resulting Aberdeen IAP measures (Ab-IAP) comprising I (Ab-I, 9 items), A (Ab-A, 17 items), and P (Ab-P, 9 items) met the criteria of conventional psychometric (CTT) analyses and the additional criteria (information and discrimination) of IRT. The use of both methods was more informative than the use of only one of these methods. Thus combining CTT and IRT appears to be a valuable tool in the development of measures

Unstated factors in orthopaedic decision-making: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Total joint replacement (TJR) of the hip or knee for osteoarthritis is among the most common elective surgical procedures. There is some inequity in provision of TJR. How decisions are made about who will have surgery may contribute to disparities in provision. The model of shared decision-making between patients and clinicians is advocated as an ideal by national bodies and guidelines. However, we do not know what happens within orthopaedic practice and whether this reflects the shared model. Our study examined how decisions are made about TJR in orthopaedic consultations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study used a qualitative research design comprising semi-structured interviews and observations. Participants were recruited from three hospital sites and provided their time free of charge. Seven clinicians involved in decision-making about TJR were approached to take part in the study, and six agreed to do so. Seventy-seven patients due to see these clinicians about TJR were approached to take part and 26 agreed to do so. The patients' outpatient appointments ('consultations') were observed and audio-recorded. Subsequent interviews with patients and clinicians examined decisions that were made at the appointments. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Clinical and lifestyle factors were central components of the decision-making process. In addition, the roles that patients assigned to clinicians were key, as were communication styles. Patients saw clinicians as occupying expert roles and they deferred to clinicians' expertise. There was evidence that patients modified their behaviour within consultations to complement that of clinicians. Clinicians acknowledged the complexity of decision-making and provided descriptions of their own decision-making and communication styles. Patients and clinicians were aware of the use of clinical and lifestyle factors in decision-making and agreed in their description of clinicians' styles. Decisions were usually reached during consultations, but patients and clinicians sometimes said that treatment decisions had been made beforehand. Some patients expressed surprise about the decisions made in their consultations, but this did not necessarily imply dissatisfaction.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The way in which roles and communication are played out in decision-making for TJR may affect the opportunity for shared decisions. This may contribute to variation in the provision of TJR. Making the importance of these factors explicit and highlighting the existence of patients' 'surprise' about consultation outcomes could empower patients within the decision-making process and enhance communication in orthopaedic consultations.</p