Ultrasound features of achilles enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of ultrasound (US) studies of Achilles enthesitis in people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), to identify the definitions and scoring systems adopted and to estimate the prevalence of ultrasound features of Achilles enthesitis in this population. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, ProQuest and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies had to measure US features of Achilles enthesitis in people with PsA. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black Quality Index tool. US protocol reporting was assessed using a checklist informed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the reporting of US studies in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. One study was scored as high methodological quality, 9 as moderate and 5 as low. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the prevalence, descriptions, scoring of features and quality of US protocol reporting. Prevalence estimates (% of entheses) reported included hypoechogenicity [mean 5.9% (s.d. 0.9)], increased thickness [mean 22.1% (s.d. 12.2)], erosions [mean 3.3% (s.d. 2.5)], calcifications [mean 42.6% (s.d. 15.6)], enthesophytes [mean 41.3% (s.d. 15.6)] and Doppler signal [mean 11.8% (s.d. 10.1)]. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlighted significant variations in prevalence figures that could potentially be explained by the range of definitions and scoring criteria available, but also due to the inconsistent reporting of US protocols. Uptake of the EULAR recommendations and using the latest definitions and validated scoring criteria would allow for a better understanding of the frequency and severity of individual features of pathology

Survey of ultrasound practice amongst podiatrists in the UK

Background: Ultrasound in podiatry practice encompasses musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging, vascular hand-held Doppler ultrasound and therapeutic ultrasound. Sonography practice is not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), with no requirement to hold a formal qualification. The College of Podiatry does not currently define ultrasound training and competencies. This study aimed to determine the current use of ultrasound, training received and mentorship received and/or provided by podiatrists using ultrasound. Methods: A quantitative study utilising a cross-sectional, on-line, single-event survey was undertaken within the UK. Results: Completed surveys were received from 284 podiatrists; 173 (70%) use ultrasound as part of their general practice, 139 (49%) for musculoskeletal problems, 131 (46%) for vascular assessment and 39 (14%) to support their surgical practice. Almost a quarter (n=62) worked for more than one organisation; 202 (71%) were employed by the NHS and/or private sector (n=118, 41%). Nearly all (93%) respondents report using a hand-held vascular Doppler in their daily practice; 216 (82%) to support decisions regarding treatment options, 102 (39%) to provide diagnostic reports for other health professionals, and 34 (13%) to guide nerve blocks. Ultrasound imaging was used by 104 (37%) respondents primarily to aid clinical decision making (n=81) and guide interventions (steroid injections n=67; nerve blocks n=39). Ninety-three percent stated they use ultrasound imaging to treat their own patients, while others scan at the request of other podiatrists (n=28) or health professionals (n=18). Few use ultrasound imaging for research (n=7) or education (n=2). Only 32 (11%) respondents (n=20 private sector) use therapeutic ultrasound to treat patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, namely tendon pathologies. Few respondents (18%) had completed formal post-graduate CASE (Consortium for the Accreditation of Sonographic Education) accredited ultrasound courses. Forty (14%) respondents receive ultrasound mentorship; the majority from fellow podiatrists (n=17) or medical colleagues (n=15). Over half (n=127) who do not have ultrasound mentorship indicated they would like a mentor predominantly for ultrasound imaging. Fifty-five (19%) report they currently provide ultrasound mentorship for others. Conclusions: Understanding the scope of ultrasound practice, the training undertaken and the requirements for mentorship will underpin the development of competencies and recommendations defined by the College of Podiatry to support professional development and ensure safe practice.</p

Treatment fidelity in the Gait Rehabilitation in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (GREAT) feasibility study

Background Many people with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) report foot pain and walking disability. Self-reported walking disability two years post-diagnosis is the main predictor of persistent disability. A psychologically informed gait rehabilitation intervention (Great Strides) for early RA was developed to address this, consisting of two compulsory sessions and up to four optional sessions delivered over three months. Physiotherapists and podiatrists received bespoke training to deliver Great Strides, incorporating motivational interviewing (MI) and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), to help patients to complete their walking exercises at home. The aim of this study was to assess fidelity of delivery within the Gait Rehabilitation in Early Arthritis Trial (GREAT) feasibility study. Methods Four physiotherapists and two podiatrists delivered 78 Great Strides sessions across three centres in the UK. All sessions were audio recorded and double coded. The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) Rating Scale (scoring ≥4 represents good proficiency) and tailored treatment fidelity measures of the six core elements and 17 BCTs delivered in session 1, five core elements delivered in session 2, and 12 BCTs in session 2-6, were developed to examine fidelity of delivery. Two trained, independent assessors rated audio recordings of Great Strides and assessed the extent to which core elements, aspects of MI and BCTs were delivered across sessions. Results Data from 28 (80%) adult participants across a total of 64 sessions were rated for core components and BCTs and 37 (50%) of sessions were analysed for MI. Relational (score=4.4) and technical (score=4.2) aspects of MI were delivered with good fidelity across the whole sample. The 6 core elements and 7 BCTs in Session 1 were conveyed with high (over 80%) treatment fidelity, but 10 further BCTs were not consistently delivered (range 23-69%). In session 2, the 5 core elements and 3 BCTs were provided with high fidelity, but another 9 BCTs were not reliably delivered (range 11-56%). Sessions 3 and 4 reliably delivered 3 out of 12 BCTs and only one session 5 and 6 was delivered. Inter-rater reliability showed agreement of over 80% was reached between raters for all sessions (range 82-87%). Conclusion Physiotherapists and podiatrists were able to deliver the core elements of GREAT sessions with high fidelity and fidelity assessment methods were appropriate. Results showed a maximum of 4 sessions was sufficient. However, treatment fidelity might be enhanced with further training or greater on-going support, as findings suggested clinicians (physiotherapists) with previous MI experience were more proficient at offering key elements of MI. Additionally, the Great Strides intervention could be amended to improve delivery, as research shows complex interventions should consider mandatory BCTs alongside optional ones, depending on the needs of individual participants

Therapists acceptability of delivering a psychologically informed gait rehabilitation intervention in early rheumatoid arthritis (GREAT) : a qualitative interview study

Background Great Strides is a brief psychologically informed gait rehabilitation intervention (two compulsory face-to-face sessions and up to four optional sessions delivered over 3 months) aimed at improving lower limb function for adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). As part of the Gait Rehabilitation in Early Arthritis Trial (GREAT) feasibility study, physiotherapists and podiatrists received two days of bespoke training delivered by psychologists, physiotherapists and podiatrists on i) the gait rehabilitation exercise programme (six walking exercises) ii) aspects of motivational interviewing (MI) and iii) delivery of key behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to facilitate motivation and adherence to the Great Strides intervention. The training was supported by a bespoke therapist manual and session checklists. The aim of this study was to explore therapists’ acceptability of: (1) the bespoke training received and (2) delivering the intervention within the GREAT feasibility study. Methods All 10 therapists who received training were invited to complete semi-structured interviews. The topic guide was informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed and a deductive thematic analysis was applied. Data were coded into six TFA constructs (Affective Attitude; Burden; Intervention Coherence; Opportunity Costs; Perceived Effectiveness; Self-efficacy). Results Nine out of ten therapists (four physiotherapists, five podiatrists) participated in the semi-structured interviews. Five therapists (four physiotherapists, one podiatrist) delivered the Great Strides intervention. Key barriers and enablers with regards to the acceptability of the bespoke training and intervention delivery were identified. Training: Therapists liked the supportive training environment (affective attitude), understood the purpose of the training sessions (intervention coherence), reported that the role play exercises aided their confidence in applying MI and BCTs (self-efficacy) and found that the training sessions were vital preparation for delivering the intervention (perceived effectiveness). Aspects of training which were considered unacceptable included the lack of time to attend the training sessions (opportunity costs). Delivery: All therapists enjoyed applying MI and BCTs to encourage participants to complete the gait exercises (affective attitude) and valued the opportunity to provide individualised care (intervention coherence). Barriers associated with acceptability included the use of trial-related materials (e.g. checklist) during intervention delivery (burden), interference of intervention delivery with routine clinical workload (opportunity costs) and the time delay between receiving training and initial intervention delivery (perceived effectiveness). Conclusion Both GREAT intervention training and delivery were considered acceptable to most therapists. The results have guided key refinements for training and intervention delivery for the GREAT internal pilot and full trial (e.g. remote access to training, timing of training in relation to intervention delivery). These refinements have the potential to improve the bespoke training and enhance the delivery of the Great Strides intervention maximising efficiency and potential for effectiveness

Applying a theoretical framework to assess the acceptability of therapist training and delivery of the Gait Rehabilitation in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial intervention (GREAT Strides): a qualitative analysis

Background/Purpose: GREAT Strides is a novel gait rehabilitation intervention with an embedded psychological component aimed at improving walking ability in people with early rheumatoid arthritis. Therapists received two days of gait rehabilitation training, motivational interviewing (MI) and behaviour change techniques (BCTs). This study explored therapists’ acceptability of: (1) the training received and (2) delivering GREAT Strides within a feasibility study. Methods: Nine therapists (four physiotherapists, five podiatrists) participated in semi-structured interviews. The topic guide was informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Interviews were professionally transcribed, and a deductive thematic analysis was applied. Data were coded into six TFA constructs (Affective Attitude; Burden; Intervention Coherence; Opportunity Costs; Perceived Effectiveness; Self-efficacy). Results: Key barriers and enablers with regards to the acceptability of the training and intervention delivery were identified. Training: Therapists liked the supportive training environment (affective attitude) and reported that role play exercises aided their confidence in applying MI and BCTs (self-efficacy). The lack of time available to attend training was considered unacceptable (opportunity costs). Delivery: All therapists valued the opportunity to provide individualised care (intervention coherence). Barriers associated with acceptability included the use of trial-related materials (e.g. checklist) during intervention delivery (burden) and the time delay between receiving training and intervention delivery (perceived effectiveness). Conclusions and implications: The bespoke training and Great Strides delivery was acceptable to most therapists. Key refinements (e.g. timing of training in relation to intervention delivery) have the potential to improve aspects of the training and delivery of the intervention, maximising efficiency and potential for effectiveness

A mixed methods feasibility study of a gait rehabilitation programme for people with early rheumatoid arthritis and foot pain

Background Foot pain, a hallmark feature of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is associated with slow and unsteady gait patterns, and persistent walking disability is common. Great Strides is a new gait rehabilitation programme designed to improve/preserve lower limb function in early RA. It is delivered by physiotherapists or podiatrists over 12-weeks and is supplemented with a home programme and support materials (DVD and illustrated booklet). It consists of a 6-task gait circuit and is underpinned by behaviour change techniques driven by motivational interviewing. The aims of this feasibility study were to 1) evaluate patient acceptability, adherence to, and safety of Great Strides, and 2) identify a suitable primary outcome measure for the main trial. Methods This study was a multi-centre (n = 3), single arm, repeated measures (pre- and post-intervention) design, with interviews exploring participants’ intervention perceptions. People with early (<2 years) RA who had foot pain were invited to participate. Intervention acceptability was evaluated using a 3-item intervention acceptability questionnaire. Adherence was evaluated using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS). Safety was monitored using case report forms. Complementary mixed methods integrated descriptive quantitative acceptability, adherence, safety and thematic analyses to corroborate findings. Measurement properties of candidate primary outcomes (10-metre walking time, Foot Function Index disability subscale [FFI-DS], Recent Onset Arthritis Disability lower extremity subscale, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short-form) were evaluated against a 7-point Change in Walking Ability scale (CWA). Results 35 participants (68.6% female) with median age (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 60 [49-68] years and disease duration 9 [4-16] months), were recruited over 9 months and 23 (67%) completed 12-week follow-up. 12 participants completed interviews after the 12-week intervention period. Intervention acceptability was excellent; 21/23 were confident that it could help the problem; 21/23 reported that they would recommend it to a friend; 22/23 indicated it made sense to them. Intervention adherence was moderate, with a median [IQR] EARS score of 12/24 [7-19]. 1 participant reported transient post-exercise soreness. No serious adverse events were reported that were related to the intervention. From interviews, 10/12 participants reported they had continued with the intervention after 12-weeks. Participants revealed that the intervention provided structure and control to their day/week. Additional perceptions of benefit reported included improvements to lower limb joint health, and feelings of increased confidence to return to, or progress to further exercise in the community. The main challenge identified by some participants was lack of space to do the intervention at home. Correlations with the CWA were better for FFI-DS change-scores. Conclusion Great Strides has excellent acceptability and appears safe for people with early RA. Levels of adherence may be improved by intervention refinement. FFI-DS scores were theoretically consistent for selection as primary outcome for the main trial

Treatment fidelity in the Gait Rehabilitation in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (GREAT) feasibility study

Background/purpose: Many people with early rheumatoid arthritis report foot pain and walking disability. Physiotherapists and podiatrists received a two-day bespoke training in a psychologically informed gait rehabilitation intervention (2 compulsory and 4 optional sessions delivered over 3/12), incorporating motivational interviewing (MI) and behaviour change techniques (BCTs), to address this. This study assessed fidelity of delivery within a feasibility study. Methods: Four physiotherapists and two podiatrists delivered 78 sessions across three UK centres. The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) Rating Scale and a bespoke tailored treatment fidelity measures were used to assess fidelity to MI and core components plus BCTs. Two independent assessors rated audio recordings of sessions. Results: 28 (80%) participants’ data across 64 sessions were rated for core components and BCTs and 37 (50%) sessions were analysed for MI. Relational (score=4.4) and technical (score=4.2) aspects of MI were delivered with good fidelity. 6 core components and 7/17 BCTs in Session 1 were conveyed with high (over 80%) treatment fidelity. 5 core elements and 3/12 BCTs in Session 2 were provided with high fidelity. Sessions 3 and 4 reliably delivered 3/12 BCTs, while only one session 5 and 6 was delivered. Inter-rater reliability showed agreement of over 80% (range 82- 87%) was reached for all sessions. Conclusions and Implications: Clinicians delivered core components and MI with high fidelity, but not all BCTs. Treatment fidelity might be enhanced with further training or on-going support. Alternatively, the intervention could be amended to specify mandatory BCTs alongside optional ones, depending on the needs of individual participants

Gait rehabilitation for foot and ankle impairments in early rheumatoid arthritis : a feasibility study of a new gait rehabilitation programme (GREAT Strides)

BACKGROUND: Foot impairments in early rheumatoid arthritis are common and lead to progressive deterioration of lower limb function. A gait rehabilitation programme underpinned by psychological techniques to improve adherence, may preserve gait and lower limb function. This study evaluated the feasibility of a novel gait rehabilitation intervention (GREAT Strides) and a future trial. METHODS: This was a mixed methods feasibility study with embedded qualitative components. People with early (< 2 years) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and foot pain were eligible. Intervention acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire. Adherence was evaluated using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS). Safety was monitored using case report forms. Participants and therapists were interviewed to explore intervention acceptability. Deductive thematic analysis was applied using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. For fidelity, audio recordings of interventions sessions were assessed using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale. Measurement properties of four candidate primary outcomes, rates of recruitment, attrition, and data completeness were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants (68.6% female) with median age (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 60.1 [49.4-68.4] years and disease duration 9.1 [4.0-16.2] months), were recruited and 23 (65.7%) completed 12-week follow-up. Intervention acceptability was excellent; 21/23 were confident that it could help and would recommend it; 22/23 indicated it made sense to them. Adherence was good, with a median [IQR] EARS score of 17/24 [12.5-22.5]. One serious adverse event that was unrelated to the study was reported. Twelve participants' and 9 therapists' interviews confirmed intervention acceptability, identified perceptions of benefit, but also highlighted some barriers to completion. Mean MITI scores for relational (4.38) and technical (4.19) aspects of motivational interviewing demonstrated good fidelity. The Foot Function Index disability subscale performed best in terms of theoretical consistency and was deemed most practical. CONCLUSION: GREAT Strides was viewed as acceptable by patients and therapists, and we observed high intervention fidelity, good patient adherence, and no safety concerns. A future trial to test the additional benefit of GREAT Strides to usual care will benefit from amended eligibility criteria, refinement of the intervention and strategies to ensure higher follow-up rates. The Foot Function Index disability subscale was identified as the primary outcome for the future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14277030