Dataset Information

Effects of self-management education programmes on self-efficacy for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Enhancing self-efficacy to manage symptoms and functions is an important aspect of self-management for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Many reports have investigated the effects of self-management education programmes for arthritis patients. However, a study that exclusively focuses on patients with OA in the same joints is required to clarify the effects of self-management programmes because individuals with knee OA experience physical and psychological difficulties different from those experienced by individuals with other arthritis diseases. Furthermore, previous studies have reported a wide range of delivery styles of self-management education programmes. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of group-based and face-to-face self-management education programmes conducted by health professionals targeting self-efficacy for knee OA exclusively.

Methods

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PEDro databases were searched to identify quantitative measures used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of self-management education programmes targeting self-efficacy in patients with knee OA. We included studies in which medical professional-delivered self-management education programmes were conducted in a group-based and face-to-face manner in community or outpatient settings.

Results

Seven RCTs from five countries were included in this review. Our retrieved studies included various types of self-management education programmes such as cognitive behavioural counselling, pain management education, physical education, weight management education, and arthritis self-efficacy management education, and control arms. They assessed various aspects of self-efficacy, including pain, physical function, arthritis symptoms excluding pain, weight management, mobility, and self-regulation. The total score of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale was also measured. Some studies have reported beneficial effects of group-based and face-to-face self-management education programmes on self-efficacy for management of pain and other symptoms and for self-regulatory, knee OA. However, the results of the included studies were varied and inconsistent.

Conclusions

The current review only included seven studies, and there was a wide range of clinical heterogeneity among these studies. Thus, the effects of group-based and face-to-face self-management education programmes conducted by health professionals on self-efficacy for knee OA exclusively are inconclusive to date. Therefore, high-quality studies are required to provide significant information on clinicians, patients, and healthcare professionals in the future.

SUBMITTER: Uritani D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8180097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA).DesignSix-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial.SettingOne secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust.ParticipantsFifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA.InterventionsParticipants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only.Outcome measuresKey feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months.ResultsNinety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group.ConclusionsThe feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures.Trial registration numberISRCTN:50675542.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of knee osteoarthritis involves various treatment strategies. It is important to explore alternative therapies that are both safe and effective. Collagen peptides have emerged as a potential intervention for knee osteoarthritis. This study aims to evaluate the analgesic effects and safety of collagen peptide in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Multiple databases including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 27 May 2023 that focused on the analgesic outcomes and adverse events associated with collagen peptides or hydrolyzed collagen in patients with osteoarthritis. We assessed the quality of the included studies and the strength of evidence using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations.ResultsFour trials involving 507 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included and analyzed using the random-effects model. All these trials were considered to have a high risk of bias. Our results revealed a significant difference in pain relief between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group in patients with knee osteoarthritis (standardized mean difference: - 0.58; 95% CI - 0.98, - 0.18, p = 0.004; I2: 68%; quality of evidence: moderate). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events between collagen peptide and placebo (odds ratio: 1.66; 95% CI 0.99, 2.78, p = 0.05; I2: 0%; quality of evidence: very low).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate significant pain relief in patients with knee osteoarthritis who received collagen peptides compared to those who received placebo. In addition, the risk of adverse events did not differ significantly between the collagen peptide group and the placebo group. However, due to potential biases and limitations, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate and confirm these findings.

Project description:ObjectivesLow-level laser therapy (LLLT) is not recommended in major knee osteoarthritis (KOA) treatment guidelines. We investigated whether a LLLT dose-response relationship exists in KOA.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEligible articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on 18 February 2019, reference lists, a book, citations and experts in the field.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe solely included randomised placebo-controlled trials involving participants with KOA according to the American College of Rheumatology and/or Kellgren/Lawrence criteria, in which LLLT was applied to participants' knee(s). There were no language restrictions.Data extraction and synthesisThe included trials were synthesised with random effects meta-analyses and subgrouped by dose using the World Association for Laser Therapy treatment recommendations. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool was used.Results22 trials (n=1063) were meta-analysed. Risk of bias was insignificant. Overall, pain was significantly reduced by LLLT compared with placebo at the end of therapy (14.23 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 95% CI 7.31 to 21.14)) and during follow-ups 1-12 weeks later (15.92 mm VAS (95% CI 6.47 to 25.37)). The subgroup analysis revealed that pain was significantly reduced by the recommended LLLT doses compared with placebo at the end of therapy (18.71 mm (95% CI 9.42 to 27.99)) and during follow-ups 2-12 weeks after the end of therapy (23.23 mm VAS (95% CI 10.60 to 35.86)). The pain reduction from the recommended LLLT doses peaked during follow-ups 2-4 weeks after the end of therapy (31.87 mm VAS significantly beyond placebo (95% CI 18.18 to 45.56)). Disability was also statistically significantly reduced by LLLT. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionLLLT reduces pain and disability in KOA at 4-8 J with 785-860 nm wavelength and at 1-3 J with 904 nm wavelength per treatment spot.Prospero registration numberCRD42016035587.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Osteoarthritis (OA) is not limited to joint pain and stiffness, which can lead to disability; it is also linked to comorbidities such as overweight, obesity and fears and beliefs related to the pathology. The knee OA population appears more affected by these risk factors and has a lower physical activity (PA) level than the general population. The key challenge for OA treatment is increasing the PA level to decrease the risk factors. METHODS:We aim to perform a prospective, multicentric, quasi-randomized controlled trial with an alternate-month design (1-month periods). People aged 50-75 years old with symptomatic knee OA (stage I-IV Kellgren and Lawrence scale) with low and moderate PA level will be included in 3 spa therapy resorts. The experimental arm will receive 5 self-management exercise sessions (1.5 h each; education, aerobics, strength training, range of motion)?+?an information booklet +?18 sessions (1 h each) of spa therapy treatment (STT). The active comparator arm will receive an information booklet +?18 sessions of STT. The primary outcome will be a change at 3 months in PA level (International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form score). Secondary outcomes will be function (WOMAC) pain (numerical scale), anxiety/depression (HAD), fears and beliefs about OA (KOFBeQ) and arthritis self-efficacy (ASES). The barriers to and facilitators of regular PA practice will be assessed by using specific items specifically designed for the study because of lack of any reference scale. DISCUSSION:The study could demonstrate the impact of a self-management exercise program associated with spa therapy in the medium term by increasing PA level in people with OA. A benefit for ameliorating fears and beliefs and anxiety/depression and improving self-efficacy will also be analysed. The findings could offer new prospects while establishing best clinical practice guidelines for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02598804 (November 5, 2015).

Project description:IntroductionPulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) is an available treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which is the most common cause of pain and disability. Nonetheless, whether the clinical effects are like that of most used drugs is unclear. Thus, this study aims to determine the effect of PEMF on pain relief by comparing them with the positive drug (celecoxib). Furthermore, this clinical trial aims to evaluate the effect of PEMF on function and quality of life with a long-term follow-up.Methods and analysisThis two-armed, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial will be conducted in the outpatient physiatry/physiotherapy clinic or inpatient ward of 17 hospitals in China. A total of 428 individuals will be included who are more than 40 years of age with diagnosed KOA. The participants will be randomly allocated to the PEMF group: receiving a 6-week PEMF (15 Hz, 30 mT) at a frequency of 40 min per day, 5 days per week plus sham drug (n=214), or drug group: receiving a 6-week celecoxib 200 mg combined with sham PEMF (n=214). Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), mid-term of intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), 10, 18 and 30 weeks (T3-5) of follow-up after randomisation. The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain index. The secondary outcomes will be WOMAC function and stiffness, pain measured by numerical rating score, quality of life, 6-minute walk test, pain catastrophising scale and responder index.Ethics and disseminationThe trial is performed following the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol and consent form have been approved by the Ethics Committee on Biomedical Research of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (#2021-220). All patients will give informed consent before participation and the trial is initiated after approval. Results of this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100052131.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to examine the value of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in understanding the process and costs of delivering diabetes self-management education (DSME) programmes in a multicountry comparative study.SettingOutpatient settings in five European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, UK) and two countries outside Europe, Taiwan and Israel.ParticipantsProviders of DSME programmes across participating countries (N=16) including healthcare professionals, administrators and patients taking part in DSME programmes.Primary and secondary measuresPrimary measure: time spent by providers in the delivery of DSME and resources consumed in order to compute programme costs. Secondary measures: self-report measures of behavioural self-management and diabetes disease/health-related outcomes.ResultsWe found significant variation in costs and the processes of how DSME programmes are provided across and within countries. Variations in costs were driven by a combination of price variances, mix of personnel skill and efficiency variances. Higher cost programmes were not found to have achieved better relative outcomes. The findings highlight the value of TDABC in calculating a patient level cost and potential of the methodology to identify process improvements in guiding the optimal allocation of scarce resources in diabetes care, in particular for DSME that is often underfunded.ConclusionsThis study is the first to measure programme costs using estimates of the actual resources used to educate patients about managing their medical condition and is the first study to map such costs to self-reported behavioural and disease outcomes. The results of this study will inform clinicians, managers and policy makers seeking to enhance the delivery of DSME programmes. The findings highlight the benefits of adopting a TDABC approach to understanding the drivers of the cost of DSME programmes in a multicountry study to reveal opportunities to bend the cost curve for DSME.