A Blended Intervention for Patients With Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis in the Physical Therapy Practice : Development and a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: Blended care, a combination of online and face-to-face care, is seen as a promising treatment option. However, actual use of blended interventions in practice is disappointing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was two folded. The first aim was to develop a blended exercise therapy intervention for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis that matches the values of the users and that can be implemented in the daily routine of physical therapists. The second aim was to investigate the feasibility through interviews and a pilot study. METHODS: In this paper, we employed the first 3 steps of the CeHRes road map to develop a blended intervention for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. We used interviews, a focus group and discussions with stakeholders to explore the needs, values, and requirements with respect to our to-be-developed blended intervention, which we called e-Exercise. The first version of e-Exercise was tested in a pilot study. Feasibility outcomes, including recruitment rates within each practice, website usage (assignments completed and website visits), and user satisfaction, were measured. In addition, therapists and patients from the pilot study were interviewed to investigate users' experiences. RESULTS: The study captured important information about stakeholders' needs and perspectives. Based on our findings, we created a first version and attuned the application's content, functionality, and structure. Patients and, to lesser extent, physical therapists were satisfied with the e-Exercise intervention. Eight patients were recruited by 8 physical therapists. Of the 8 patients, 6 completed more than 7 of 12 modules. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines the development and feasibility of a blended exercise therapy intervention for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. E-Exercise offers an alternative approach in the physical therapy treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis. This study provides valuable information to conduct a further trial to evaluate the (cost) effectiveness of e-Exercise compared to usual physical therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register Number: NTR4224; www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4224 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6fOK4lrTO)

A Blended Intervention for Patients With Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis in the Physical Therapy Practice: Development and a Pilot Study

<strong>Background<strong> Exercise therapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis is effective in reducing pain, increasing physical activity and physical functioning, but costly and a burden for the health care budget. A web-based intervention is cheap in comparison to face-to-face exercise therapy and has the advantage of supporting in home exercises because of the 24/7 accessibility. However, the lack of face-to-face contact with a professional is a disadvantage of web-based interventions and is probably one of the reasons for low adherence rates. In order to combine the best of two worlds, we have developed the intervention e-Exercise. In this blended intervention face-to-face contacts with a physical therapist are partially replaced by a web-based exercise intervention. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 months) (cost)-effectiveness of e-Exercise compared to usual care physical therapy. Our hypothesis is that e-Exercise is more effective and cost-effective in increasing physical functioning and physical activity compared to usual care. <strong>Methods/Design<strong> This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, single-blinded, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial. In total, 200 patients with OA of the hip and/or knee will be randomly allocated into either e-Exercise or usual care (physical therapy). E-Exercise is a 12-week intervention, consisting of maximum five face-to-face physical therapy contacts supplemented with a web-based program. The web-based program contains assignments to gradually increase patients’ physical activity, strength and stability exercises and information about OA related topics. Primary outcomes are physical activity and physical functioning. Secondary outcomes are health related quality of life, self-perceived effect, pain, tiredness and self-efficacy. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3 and 12 months after inclusion. Retrospective cost questionnaires will be sent at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and used for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. <strong>Discussion<strong> This study is the first randomized controlled trial in the (cost)-effectiveness of a blended exercise intervention for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. The findings will help to improve the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. (aut. ref.

Assessment of Antibody Response Elicited by a 7-valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Pediatric Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection

We investigated antibody responses against pneumococci of serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F in 56 children and adolescents with perinatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who were vaccinated with 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Overall immune responses differed greatly between serotypes. Correlation coefficients between immunoglobulin G (IgG) measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and functional antibodies measured by a flow cytometry opsonophagocytosis assay (OPA) varied with serotype and time points studied. After 3 months of administering a second PCV7 dose we got the highest correlation (with significant r values of 0.754, 0.414, and 0.593 for serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F, respectively) but no significant increase in IgG concentration and OPA titers compared to the first dose. We defined a responder to a serotype included in the vaccine with two criteria: frequency of at least twofold OPA and ELISA increases for each serotype and frequency of conversion from negative to positive OPA levels. Responders varied from 43.9% to 46.3%, 28.5% to 50.0%, and 38.0% to 50.0% for serotypes 6B, 14, and 23F, respectively, depending on the response criterion. The present research highlights the importance of demonstrating vaccine immunogenicity with suitable immunological endpoints in immunocompromised patients and also the need to define how much antibody is required for protection from different serotypes, since immunogenicity differed significantly between serotypes