IntroductionInternational evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with (a combination of) non-surgical treatments, and using surgical intervention only if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that non-surgical treatments are not optimally used in orthopaedic practice. To improve the adoption of non-surgical treatments, more insight is needed into barriers and facilitators of these treatments. Therefore, this study assessed which barriers and facilitators are associated with the use and prescription of different non-surgical treatments before hip and knee OA in orthopaedic practice among patients and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands.Materials and MethodsWe performed two internet-based surveys among 172 orthopaedic surgeons and 174 OA patients. Univariate association and multivariable regression techniques are used to identify barriers and facilitators associated with the use of non-surgical treatments.ResultsMost barriers and facilitators among patients were associated with the use of physical therapy, lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. Among orthopaedic surgeons, most were associated with prescription of acetaminophen, dietary therapy and physical therapy. Examples of barriers and facilitators among patients included “People in my environment had positive experiences with a surgery” (facilitator for education about OA), and “Advice of people in my environment to keep on moving” (facilitator for lifestyle and dietary advice). For orthopaedic surgeons, examples were “Lack of knowledge about guideline” (barrier for lifestyle advice), “Agreements/ deliberations with primary care” and “Easy communication with a dietician” (facilitators for dietary therapy). Also the belief in the efficacy of these treatments was associated with increased prescription.ConclusionsStrategies to improve non-surgical treatment use in orthopaedic practice should be targeted at changing the beliefs of orthopedic surgeons, communication with other OA care providers and involving patient’s environment in OA treatment.

Objective. To systematically and comprehensively document the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions on physical functioning and psychological well-being in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods. Multiple electronic databases were searched for studies on the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions in SSc. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and observational designs (ODs) with ‡10 participants were included. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Results. Twenty-three studies (9 RCTs, 4 CCTs, and 10 ODs) were included. Studies assessing comparable interventions were grouped, resulting in data for 16 different interventions. The total number of patients included per study ranged from 10 to 53. Seventeen different outcome domains were assessed, with hand function, limitations in activities, and quality of life being assessed most frequently. Three studies, all RCTs, were rated as high quality. These RCTs reported that 1) a multifaceted oral health intervention improves mouth hygiene, and additional orofacial exercises did not improve mouth opening, 2) a multidisciplinary team-care program improves limitations in activities, mouth opening, and hand grip strength, and 3) manual lymph drainage improves hand function, limitations in activities, and quality of life. Conclusion. The body of knowledge regarding nonpharmacologic care in SSc is very limited due to the wide variety in studied interventions and outcomes in the relatively uncommon but highly disabling disease. To structure and focus future research, an international consensus should be established to prioritize primary targets for nonpharmacologic treatment and the content of interventions and to agree on a core set of outcome measures.

Although there are some differences, the SPIN Cohort is broadly comparable with other large prevalent SSc cohorts, increasing confidence that insights gained from the SPIN Cohort should be generalizable, although it should be noted that all three cohorts include primarily White participants.

Objective Conservative treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee are underused, whereas the demand for surgery is rising substantially. To improve the use of conservative treatment modalities, a more in‐depth understanding of the reasons for patients’ treatment choices is required. This study identifies the reasons for choice of treatment in patients with hip or knee OA. Methods Semistructured in‐depth interviews with 24 OA patients were held. Stratified purposive sampling was used to enrich data variation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subsequently coded using a thematic approach. Two independent researchers reflected on, compared, discussed, and adjusted the coding. Results Various treatment modalities were discussed by respondents: medication, exercise, physical therapy, injections, surgery, complementary, and alternative treatment. Four key themes underlying the choice for or against a treatment modality for OA were identified: 1) treatment characteristics: expectations about its effectiveness and risks, the degree to which it can be personalized to a patient's needs and wishes, and the accessibility of a treatment; 2) personal investment in terms of money and time; 3) personal circumstances: age, body weight, comorbidities, and previous experience with a treatment; and 4) support and advice from the patient's social environment and health care providers. Conclusion The 4 identified key themes enhance the insight of health care providers into the widespread reasons influencing patients’ treatment choices for knee or hip OA. This knowledge can be used in clinical practice to aid shared decision making, which may lead to optimized treatment choices for both conservative and surgical treatment.

Background Web-based self-management enhancing programs have the potential to support patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in their self-management; for example, improve their health status by increasing their self-efficacy or taking their prescribed medication. We developed a Web-based self-management enhancing program in collaboration with RA patients and professionals as co-designers on the basis of the intervention mapping framework. Although self-management programs are complex interventions, it is informative to perform an explorative randomized controlled trial (RCT) before embarking on a larger trial. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a Web-based self-management enhancing program for patients with RA and identify outcome measures most likely to capture potential benefits. Methods A multicenter exploratory RCT was performed with an intervention group and a control group. Both groups received care as usual. In addition, the intervention group received 12 months of access to a Web-based self-management program. Assessment occurred at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Outcome measures included self-management behavior (Patient Activation Measurement, Self-Management Ability Scale), self-efficacy (Rheumatoid Arthritis task-specific Self-Efficacy, Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interaction), general health status (RAND-36), focus on fatigue (Modified Pain Coping Inventory for Fatigue), and perceived pain and fatigue (Numeric Rating Scales). A linear mixed model for repeated measures, using the intention-to-treat principle, was applied to study differences between the patients in the intervention (n=78) and control (n=79) groups. A sensitivity analysis was performed in the intervention group to study the influence of patients with high (N=30) and low (N=40) use of the intervention. Results No positive effects were found regarding the outcome measurements. Effect sizes were low. Conclusions Based on these results, it is not possible to conclude on the positive effects of the intervention or to select outcome measures to be regarded as the primary/main or secondary outcomes for a future trial. A process evaluation should be performed to provide more insight into the low compliance with and effectiveness of the intervention. This can determine for whom this sort of program will work and help to fine-tune the inclusion criteria. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR4871; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4726