Conclusions: Clinicians and students encounter barriers to delivery of high-value OA care in clinical practice/training (micro-level); within service environments (meso-level); and within the health system (macro-level).

IntroductionDevelopment and implementation of appropriate health policy is essential to address the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate existing health policies for integrated prevention/management of NCDs among Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We sought to describe policies’ aims and strategies to achieve those aims, and evaluate extent of integration of musculoskeletal conditions as a leading cause of global morbidity.MethodsPolicies submitted by OECD Member States in response to a World Health Organization (WHO) NCD Capacity Survey were extracted from the WHO document clearing-house and analysed following a standard protocol. Policies were eligible for inclusion when they described an integrated approach to prevention/management of NCDs. Internal validity was evaluated using a standard instrument (sum score: 0–14; higher scores indicate better quality). Quantitative data were expressed as frequencies, while text data were content-analysed and meta-synthesised using standardised methods.ResultsAfter removal of duplicates and screening, 44 policies from 30 OECD Member States were included. Three key themes emerged to describe the general aims of included policies: system strengthening approaches; improved service delivery; and better population health. Whereas the policies of most countries covered cancer (83.3%), cardiovascular disease (76.6%), diabetes/endocrine disorders (76.6%), respiratory conditions (63.3%) and mental health conditions (63.3%), only half the countries included musculoskeletal health and pain (50.0%) as explicit foci. General strategies were outlined in 42 (95.5%) policies—all were relevant to musculoskeletal health in 12 policies, some relevant in 27 policies and none relevant in three policies. Three key themes described the strategies: general principles for people-centred NCD prevention/management; enhanced service delivery; and system strengthening approaches. Internal validity sum scores ranged from 0 to 13; mean: 7.6 (95% CI 6.5 to 8.7).ConclusionRelative to other NCDs, musculoskeletal health did not feature as prominently, although many general prevention/management strategies were relevant to musculoskeletal health improvement.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst for the development and adoption of a broad range of remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) in health care delivery. It is important to demonstrate how these technologies were implemented during the early stages of this pandemic to identify their application and barriers to adoption, particularly among vulnerable populations. Objective The purpose of this knowledge synthesis was to present the range of RMTs used in delivering care to patients with COVID-19 and to identify perceived benefits of and barriers to their use. The review placed a special emphasis on health equity considerations. Methods A rapid review of published research was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and QxMD for records published from the inception of COVID-19 (December 2019) to July 6, 2020. Synthesis involved content analysis of reported benefits of and barriers to the use of RMTs when delivering health care to patients with COVID-19, in addition to health equity considerations. Results Of 491 records identified, 48 publications that described 35 distinct RMTs were included in this review. RMTs included use of existing technologies (eg, videoconferencing) and development of new ones that have COVID-19–specific applications. Content analysis of perceived benefits generated 34 distinct codes describing advantages of RMTs, mapped to 10 themes overall. Further, 52 distinct codes describing barriers to use of RMTs were mapped to 18 themes. Prominent themes associated with perceived benefits included a lower burden of care (eg, for hospitals, health care practitioners; 28 records), reduced infection risk (n=33), and support for vulnerable populations (n=14). Prominent themes reflecting barriers to use of RMTs included equity-related barriers (eg, affordability of technology for users, poor internet connectivity, poor health literacy; n=16), the need for quality “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs in clinical care (n=12), and the need for additional resources to develop and support new technologies (n=11). Overall, 23 of 48 records commented on equity characteristics that stratify health opportunities and outcomes, including general characteristics that vary over time (eg, age, comorbidities; n=17), place of residence (n=11), and socioeconomic status (n=7). Conclusions Results of this rapid review highlight the breadth of RMTs being used to monitor and inform treatment of COVID-19, the potential benefits of using these technologies, and existing barriers to their use. Results can be used to prioritize further efforts in the implementation of RMTs (eg, developing “best practice” guidelines for use of RMTs and generating strategies to improve equitable access for marginalized populations).

Objective. To measure confidence and attitudes of the current and emerging interprofessional workforce concerning osteoarthritis (OA) care.Methods. Study design is a multinational (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners [GPs], GP registrars, primary care nurses, and physiotherapists) and final-year medical and physiotherapy students. GPs and GP registrars were only sampled in Australia/New Zealand and Australia, respectively. The study outcomes are as follows: confidence in OA knowledge and skills (customized instrument), biomedical attitudes to care (Pain Attitudes Beliefs Scale [PABS]), attitudes toward high-and low-value care (customized items), attitudes toward exercise/physical activity (free-text responses).Results. A total of 1886 clinicians and 1161 students responded. Although a number of interprofessional differences were identified, confidence in OA knowledge and skills was consistently greatest among physiotherapists and lowest among nurses (eg, the mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] for physiotherapist-nurse analyses were 9.3 [7.7-10.9] for knowledge [scale: 11-55] and 14.6 [12.3-17.0] for skills [scale: 16-80]). Similarly, biomedical attitudes were stronger in nurses compared with physiotherapists (6.9 [5.3-8.4]; scale 10-60) and in medical students compared with physiotherapy students (2.0 [1.3-2.7]). Some clinicians and students agreed that people with OA will ultimately require total joint replacement (7%-19% and 19%-22%, respectively), that arthroscopy is an appropriate intervention for knee OA (18%-36% and 35%-44%), and that magnetic resonance imaging is informative for diagnosis and clinical management of hip/knee OA (8%-61% and 21%-52%). Most agreed (90%-98% and 92%-97%) that exercise is indicated and strongly supported by qualitative data.Conclusion. Workforce capacity building that de-emphasizes biomedical management and promotes high-value first-line care options is needed. Knowledge and skills among physiotherapists support leadership roles in OA care for this discipline.

No abstract

Objective: Osteoarthritis carries substantial health and socioeconomic burden, which is particularly marked in marginalised groups. It is imperative that practitioners have ready access to summaries of evidence-based interventions for osteoarthritis that incorporate equity considerations. Summaries of systematic reviews can provide this. The present study surveyed experts to inform the selection of interventions to generate Cochrane Evidence4Equity (E4E) summaries. Methods: We identified 29 non-surgical interventions to prioritise. Key findings from these interventions were summarised and provided to 9 experts in the field of osteoarthritis. Expert participants were asked to rate interventions based on feasibility, health system effects, universality, impact on inequities, and priority for translation into equity based E4E summaries. Results: Expert participants rated land-based exercise highest for priority for translation into an E4E summaries. Conclusion: The survey generated information that can be used to direct and support knowledge translation efforts.

Objective Osteoarthritis generates substantial health and socioeconomic burden, which is particularly marked in marginalized groups. It is imperative that practitioners have ready access to summaries of evidence-based interventions for osteoarthritis that incorporate equity considerations. Summaries of systematic reviews can provide this. The present study surveyed experts to prioritize a selection ofinterventions, from which equity focused summaries will be generated. Specifically, the prioritized interventions will be developed into Cochrane Evidence4Equity (E4E) summaries. Methods Twenty-seven systematic reviews of OA interventions were found. From these, twenty-nine non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis were identified, based on statistically significant findings for desired outcome variables or adverse events. Key findings from these studies were summarised and provided to 9 experts in the field of osteoarthritis.. Expert participants were asked to rate interventions based on feasibility, health system effects, universality, impact on inequities, and priority for translation into equity based E4E summaries. Expert participants were also encouraged to make comments to provide context for each rating. Free text responses were coded inductively and grouped into subthemes and themes. Results Expert participants rated the intervention home land-based exercise for knee OA highest for priority for translation into an E4E summaries, followed by the interventions individual land-based exercise for knee OA, class land-based exercise for knee OA, exercise for hand OA and land-based exercise for hip OA. Upon qualitative analysis of the expert participants’ comments, fifteen subthemes were identified and grouped into three overall themes: (1) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention is unnecessary or unsafe; (2) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention may increase health inequities; and (3) experts noted difficulties completing rating exercise. Conclusion The list of priority interventions and corresponding expert commentary generated information that will be used to direct and support knowledge translation efforts.

knee osteoarthritis is, what it is caused by, their beliefs about the consequences of knee osteoarthritis, treatment and recovery, clinicians can identify and target key beliefs that present a barrier to uptake of evidence-based, non-surgical interventions.