Chronic Disease Management

Brand, Caroline; Ackerman, Ilana N.; Bohensky, Megan; Bennell, Kim L

doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2012.10.005

Cited by 39 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This renders the guidance less useful and decreases the potential impact of research studies on clinical practice. Indeed, studies suggest that the uptake and use of clinical guidelines in daily practice are suboptimal 19,20 , possibly attributable to the lack of specificity of the recommendations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor replicability of recommended exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a descriptive analysis of evidence informing current guidelines and recommendations

Bartholdy

Nielsen

Warming

et al. 2019

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine the reporting completeness of exercise-based interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in studies that form the basis of current clinical guidelines, and examine if the clinical benefit (pain and disability) from exercise is associated with the intervention reporting completeness. Design: Review of clinical OA guidelines Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 including recommendations about exercise for knee OA. The studies used to inform a recommendation were reviewed for exercise reporting completeness. Reporting completeness was evaluated using a 12item checklist; a combination of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Each item was scored 'YES' or 'NO' and summarized as a proportion of interventions with complete descriptions and each intervention's completeness was summarized as the percentage of completely described items. The association between intervention description completeness score and clinical benefits was analyzed with a multilevel meta-regression. Results: From 10 clinical guidelines, we identified 103 original studies of which 100 were retrievable (including 133 interventions with 6,926 patients). No interventions were completely described on all 12 items (median 33% of items complete; range 17e75%). The meta-regression analysis indicated that poorer reporting was associated with greater effects on pain and no association with effects on disability. Conclusion: The inadequate description of recommended interventions for knee OA is a serious problem that precludes replication of effective interventions in clinical practice. By consequence, the relevance and usability of clinical guideline documents and original study reports are diminished.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor replicability of recommended exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a descriptive analysis of evidence informing current guidelines and recommendations

Bartholdy

Nielsen

Warming

et al. 2019

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suboptimal care has been demonstrated across a number of quality domains including provision of effective treatments, safety, access to educational material and support for self-management. 22 For example, the Australian CareTrack study showed that only 43% of people with OA received recommended care. 20 In particular, non-drug, non-surgical interventions are not given the importance by GPs that is recommended by all CPGs, 15 23 24 while prescribing patterns appear to be better aligned with recommendations for pharmacological treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and enablers in primary care clinicians' management of osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionOsteoarthritis is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Primary care management of osteoarthritis is generally suboptimal despite evidence for several modestly effective interventions and the availability of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. This report describes a planned study to synthesise the views of primary care clinicians on the barriers and enablers to following recommended management of osteoarthritis, with the aim of providing new interpretations that may facilitate the uptake of recommended treatments, and in turn improve patient care.Methods and analysisA systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. 5 databases will be searched using key search terms for qualitative research, evidence-based practice, clinical practice guidelines, osteoarthritis, beliefs, perceptions, barriers, enablers and adherence. A priori inclusion/exclusion criteria include availability of data from primary care clinicians, reports on views regarding management of osteoarthritis, and studies using qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis. At least 2 independent reviewers will identify eligible reports, conduct a critical appraisal of study conduct, extract data and synthesise reported findings and interpretations. Synthesis will follow thematic analysis within a grounded theory framework of inductive coding and iterative theme identification. The reviewers plus co-authors will contribute to the meta-synthesis to find new themes and theories. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach will be used to determine a confidence profile of each finding from the meta-synthesis. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will help to inform policy and practice and assist in the optimisation of management for people with osteoarthritis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015027543.

show abstract

“…Physiotherapists should consider employing strategies that assist people to begin and sustain new behaviours that improve their osteoarthritis (Bassett, 2015). Furthermore, as osteoarthritis is a chronic disease, treatment should be viewed as a continuum of care; hence, booster sessions should be considered to assist in the maintenance of regular exercise (Brand, Ackerman, Bohensky, & Bennell, 2013;Rosemann, Laux, Szecsenyi, & Grol, 2008).…”

Section: Myth 5: Conservative Treatments Are Ineffectual and Only Desmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to bust common osteoarthritis myths

O’Brien¹,

Chapple²,

Baldwin³

et al. 2019

NZJP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several common beliefs about osteoarthritis held by people living with the condition and some clinicians are discordant with current evidence and can hinder effective management. Therefore, providing information about the disease and its mechanisms could lead to better management of people with osteoarthritis. This paper addresses the seven most common myths surrounding osteoarthritis relating to its causative factors, pathology, assessment and management. We present the evidence to refute these misconceptions and argue that physiotherapists are in an ideal position to provide education to people with osteoarthritis. Ultimately, physiotherapists can play a central role in the provision of care for people with osteoarthritis.

show abstract

Chronic Disease Management

Cited by 39 publications

References 98 publications

Poor replicability of recommended exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a descriptive analysis of evidence informing current guidelines and recommendations

Poor replicability of recommended exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a descriptive analysis of evidence informing current guidelines and recommendations

Barriers and enablers in primary care clinicians' management of osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis

Time to bust common osteoarthritis myths

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About