A mixed methods study to investigate needs assessment for knee pain and disability: population and individual perspectives

Jinks, Clare; Ong, Bie Nio; Richardson, Jane

doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-59

Cited by 70 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study support previous literature demonstrating the broader impact of OA on individual's lives [14][15][16]. Notably, our study highlights that the impact of OA is not limited to the individual but also stretches to their family/carers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Impact and therapy of osteoarthritis: the Arthritis Care OA Nation 2012 survey

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the fastest growing cause of disability worldwide. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of OA on individuals and to explore current treatment strategies. An online UK-wide survey of people with self-reported OA was conducted composed of 52 questions exploring the impact of OA, diagnosis and treatment, the role of health professionals and self-management. 4,043 people were invited with 2,001 respondents (49% response, 56% women, mean age 65 years). 52% reported that OA had a large impact on their lives. 15% of respondents had taken early retirement, on average 7.8 years earlier than planned. In consultations with general practitioners, only half reported a discussion on pain; fewer reported discussing their fears (21%) or management goals (15%).Nearly half (48%) reported not seeking medical help until pain was frequently unbearable.Oral analgesics (62%), topical therapies (47%), physiotherapy (38%) and steroid injections (28%) were commonly used. The majority (71%) reported varying degrees of persistent pain despite taking all prescribed medication. Although 64% knew that increasing exercise was important, only 36% acted on this knowledge; 87% who increased exercise found it beneficial. Over half had future concerns related to mobility (60%), maintaining independence (52%) and coping with everyday activities (51%). OA had significant individual economic impact especially on employment. Current treatment strategies still leave most people in pain with significant fears for the future. There is considerable opportunity to improve the holistic nature of OA consultations especially in provision of information and promotion of self-management strategies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Impact and therapy of osteoarthritis: the Arthritis Care OA Nation 2012 survey

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As focused upon in our previous research (21), some patients disliked taking medicines because of fears surrounding toxicity and addiction. This is a common finding in research on analgesia in OA and medicine-taking in general (20,(26)(27)(28)(29). In the present study, regardless of whether they were skeptical about using medicines, patients were reliant upon their NSAID and took it routinely.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“It looks after me”: How older patients make decisions about analgesics for osteoarthritis

Milder¹,

Lipworth²,

Williams³

et al. 2011

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To explore the key motivators behind selection of analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol and complementary medications (CMs)) by patients with osteoarthritis (OA).Methods: A qualitative study, in which in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 OA patients, recruited from four general practices in Sydney, Australia. Patients were aged 65 or above, and were currently taking, or had recently taken, an NSAID for osteoarthritis.Results: Three key themes emerged from the data: reliance, routine and pill load. Reliance: Patients were strongly reliant upon NSAIDs because they consistently satisfied their needs. By contrast, they were much less reliant upon paracetamol because of uncertainty or scepticism about its effectiveness. They were not reliant upon CMs but were willing to take them indefinitely because they were perceived as being without risk. Routine and pill load: Many patients took an NSAID, as well as CMs as part of a 'daily routine'. By contrast, patients had difficulty developing a routine around using paracetamol at the recommended maximum dose because of the implicit frequency of dosing required and an aversion to the associated 'pill load'. Conclusion:The results highlight the importance of exploring the perceptions and preferences of patients with regard to analgesics for OA. Clinician advice regarding analgesia for OA should take account of the possible reliance of the patient upon an NSAID, their medicine routines, and their potential concern about the pill load associated, in particular, with paracetamol.

show abstract

“…l included people younger than 18 years [70][71][72][73][74][75] l case study or auto-ethnography [76][77][78][79][80][81] l chronicity of pain was not explicit in the sample description l reported conditions other than MSK pain l did not explicitly state that it was specifically about MSK pain l included perceptions of others such as family members, carers, clinicians l included those with pain of < 3 months in duration l did not meet the specific scope, for example explored perceptions of fatigue or exercise [266][267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280] l explored the experience of chronic disease rather than chronic pain. [281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295] Ninety-three studies 66,296-387 met the study scope and were appraised (see Figure 9).…”

Section: Search and Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain

Toye

Seers

Allcock

et al. 2013

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/ This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its proceeding programmes as project number 09/2001/09. The contractual start date was in October 2010. The final report began editorial review in November 2012 and was accepted for publication in February 2013. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. Published b...

show abstract

A mixed methods study to investigate needs assessment for knee pain and disability: population and individual perspectives

Cited by 70 publications

References 20 publications

Impact and therapy of osteoarthritis: the Arthritis Care OA Nation 2012 survey

Impact and therapy of osteoarthritis: the Arthritis Care OA Nation 2012 survey

“It looks after me”: How older patients make decisions about analgesics for osteoarthritis

A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About