Background In contrast to best practice guidelines for knee osteoarthritis (OA), findings from several different healthcare settings have identified that nonsurgical treatments are underused and TKA is overused. Empirical evidence and qualitative observations suggest that patients’ willingness to accept nonsurgical interventions for knee OA is low. A qualitative investigation of why patients may feel that such interventions are of little value may be an important step toward increasing their use in the treatment of knee OA Questions/purposes This qualitative study was embedded in a larger study investigating patient-related factors (beliefs/attitudes toward knee OA and its treatment) and health-system related factors (access, referral pathways) known to influence patients’ decisions to seek medical care. In this paper we focus on the patient-related factors with the aim of exploring why patients may feel that nonsurgical interventions are of little value in the treatment of knee OA. Methods A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single tertiary hospital in Australia. Patients with endstage knee OA on the waiting list for TKA were approached during their preadmission appointment and invited to participate in one-to-one interviews. As prescribed by the qualitative approach, data collection and data analysis were performed in parallel and recruitment continued until the authors agreed that the themes identified would not change through interviews with subsequent participants, at which point, recruitment stopped. Thirty-seven patients were approached and 27 participated. Participants were 48% female; mean age was 67 years. Participants’ beliefs about knee OA and its treatment were identified in the interview transcripts. Beliefs were grouped into five belief dimensions: identity beliefs (what knee OA is), causal beliefs (what causes knee OA), consequence beliefs (what the consequences of knee OA are), timeline beliefs (how long knee OA lasts) and treatment beliefs (how knee OA can be controlled). Results All participants believed that their knee OA was “bone on bone” (identity beliefs) and most (> 14 participants) believed it was caused by “wear and tear” (causal beliefs). Most (> 14 participants) believed that loading the knee could further damage their “vulnerable” joint (consequence beliefs) and all believed that their pain would deteriorate over time (timeline beliefs). Many (>20 participants) believed that physiotherapy and exercise interventions would increase pain and could not replace lost knee cartilage. They preferred experimental and surgical treatments which they believed would replace lost cartilage and cure their knee pain (treatment beliefs). Conclusions Common misconceptions about knee OA appear to influence patients’ acceptance of nonsurgical, evidence-based treatments such as exercise and weight loss. Once the participants in this study had been “diagnosed” with “bone-on-bone” changes, many disregarded exercise-based interventions which they believed would damage their joint, in favor of alternative and experimental treatments, which they believed would regenerate lost knee cartilage. Future research involving larger, more representative samples are needed to understand how widespread these beliefs are and if/how they influence treatment decisions. In the meantime, clinicians seeking to encourage acceptance of nonsurgical interventions may consider exploring and targeting misconceptions that patients hold about the identity, causes, consequences, timeline, and treatment of knee OA. Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

ObjectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs) are often the first health professionals to assess patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Despite clinical guideline recommendations for non-surgical intervention as first-line therapies, the most frequent referral from a GP for a person with knee OA is to an orthopaedic surgeon. The aim of our study was to explore patient factors that impact on the decision to progress to total knee replacement (TKR), including the experience of patients in general practice, their perceptions of their condition, and their access and use of community-based allied health interventions.DesignQualitative investigation using semi-structured interviews. The Candidacy framework was selected as a lens to examine the factors driving healthcare access. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Codes identified in the data were mapped to the seven Candidacy domains. Themes corresponding to each domain were described.SettingA public hospital in Melbourne, Australia.Participants27 patients with knee OA who were on a waiting list to undergo TKR.ResultsTen themes described factors influencing access and use of non-surgical interventions and decision-making for undergoing TKR: (1) History of knee problems, change in symptoms; (2) Physical and psychosocial functioning (Identification of Candidacy); (3) GP and social networks as information sources, access to care (Navigation); (4) Referral pathways (Permeability of services); (5) Communication of impact (Appearances at health services); (6) GP-Surgeon as the predominant referral pathway (Adjudications); (7) Physical activity as painful; (8) Beliefs about effectiveness of non-surgical interventions (Offers and resistance); (9) Familiarity with local system; and (10) Availability (Operating conditions and local production of Candidacy).ConclusionsUsing the Candidacy framework to analyse patients’ experiences when deciding to progress to TKR highlighted missed opportunities in general practice to orient patients to first try non-surgical interventions. Patients with knee OA also require improved support to navigate allied health services.

Introduction: Fifty per cent of patients consent for total knee replacement (TKR) with unrealistic expectations about what it involves and can achieve. A framework is needed to help surgeons identify key knowledge gaps and misconceptions that can be targeted during the informed consent process. In this qualitative study, we explored knowledge gaps and misconceptions by asking patients to reflect on their expectations along the TKR journey. Methods: Eligible adults were ≥18 years, 12-month post-TKR and had completed a validated expectations questionnaire pre-TKR as part of a joint replacement registry. To capture a variety of perspectives, people with a range of pre-TKR expectation scores were invited. In interviews, participants reflected on anticipated and actual experiences and unexpected experiences they had along the way. Transcripts were analysed through inductive thematic analysis. Recruitment ceased when thematic saturation was reached. Ethics Approval: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Ethics Committee (LRR 077/18). Results: In the final sample (n = 20; 50% female; median age = 72 years; contralateral TKR = 11), all participants described instances where their anticipated and actual experiences diverged, including high expectations of improvements in pain/function (pre-surgical optimism), lacking awareness about anaesthetic procedures (perioperative misunderstandings), feeling unprepared for the length of the recovery period (post-operative misestimations) and trying to make sense of ongoing functional limitations (long-term misattributions). Discussion and Conclusion: These findings are captured in a preliminary framework of therapeutic misconception. Although future research is needed to test this framework prospectively in larger, more generalisable samples, surgeons can consider these key knowledge gaps and misconceptions when consenting for TKR.