Randomized trial of the effectiveness of a non-pharmacological multidisciplinary face-to-face treatment program on daily function compared to a telephone-based treatment program in patients with generalized osteoarthritis

Cuperus, Nienke; Hoogeboom, Thomas J.; Kersten, Clarinda C.; Broeder, Alfons A den; Vlieland, Thea Vliet; Ende, Cornelia van den

doi:10.1016/j.joca.2015.04.007

Cited by 39 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, 158 patients were included. For more details on the study population, we refer to the clinical study .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, research on (the management of) GOA is very limited. Recently we evaluated the effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic, multidisciplinary, face‐to‐face treatment program versus a telephone‐based treatment program on daily function for individuals with GOA . That study showed small, nonsignificant differences in effectiveness on daily function and other clinical outcomes between both treatment programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cuperus

Hout

Hoogeboom

et al. 2016

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic faceto-face treatment program compared with a telephone-based treatment program for patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA).Methods. An economic evaluation was carried out alongside a randomized clinical trial involving 147 patients with GOA. Program costs were estimated from time registrations. One-year medical and nonmedical costs were estimated using cost questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol (EQ) classification system, EQ rating scale, and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D). Daily function was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI). Cost and QALY/effect differences were analyzed using multilevel regression analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. Medical costs of the face-to-face treatment and telephone-based treatment were estimated at e387 and e252, respectively. The difference in total societal costs was nonsignificantly in favor of the face-to-face program (difference e708; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2e5,058, e3,642). QALYs were similar for both groups according to the EQ, but were significantly in favor of the face-to-face group, according to the SF-6D (difference 0.022 [95% CI 0.000, 0.045]). Daily function was similar according to the HAQ DI. Since both societal costs and QALYs/effects were in favor of the faceto-face program, the economic assessment favored this program, regardless of society's willingness to pay. There was a 65-90% chance that the face-to-face program had better cost utility and a 60-70% chance of being cost effective. Conclusion. This economic evaluation from a societal perspective showed that a nonpharmacologic, face-to-face treatment program for patients with GOA was likely to be cost effective, relative to a telephone-based program.

show abstract

“…In total, 158 patients were included. For more details on the study population, we refer to the clinical study .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cuperus

Hout

Hoogeboom

et al. 2016

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on previous research 43 , an a priori sample size of 322 participants (161 per group) would provide 80% power at 5% level of significance (two-sided unpaired t-test) to detect a mean difference of 0.35 (standard deviation 1.00) in the number of consultations in secondary health care between groups, anticipating a maximum loss to follow-up of 20%, assuming a normal distribution.…”

Section: Sample Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the dr. Bart application on healthcare use and clinical outcomes in people with osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip in the Netherlands; a randomized controlled trial

Pelle

Bevers

Palen

et al. 2020

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the short-term effects of use of the dr. Bart app, compared to usual care, on the number of secondary health care consultations and clinical outcomes in people with knee/hip OA in the Netherlands. Method: A randomized controlled design involving participants !50 years with self-reported knee and/ or hip OA recruited from the community. The number of secondary health care consultations (primary outcome) and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months via online questionnaires. Data were analyzed using longitudinal mixed models, corrected for baseline values. Due to the design of this study, blinding of participants and researchers was not possible. Results: In total, 427 eligible participants were allocated to either the dr. Bart group (n ¼ 214) or usual care (n ¼ 213). We found no difference between groups in the number of secondary (i.e., orthopaedic surgeon, rheumatologist, or physician assistant) health care consultations (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.20 (95% CI: 0.67; 2.19)). We found positive treatment effects of the dr. Bart app on symptoms (2.6 (95% CI: 0.4; 4.9)), pain (3.5 (95% CI: 0.9; 6.0)), and activities of daily living (2.9 (95% CI: 0.2; 5.6)) on a 0e100 scale, higher score indicating less complaints, but not in any other secondary outcome. Conclusion: The dr. Bart app did not change the number of secondary health care consultations compared to usual care. However, we found small positive effects (not clinically relevant) on pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living in people with knee/hip OA. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693/NL6505) (https://www.trialregister.nl/ trial/6505).

show abstract

“…This study has an observational cross-sectional design; research questions were answered by secondary analyses of data from four studies performed in the Netherlands in four different populations: (1) patients with knee or hip OA in primary care [26], (2) patients with generalized OA in secondary care [27], (3) patients with knee or hip OA who underwent TJA [23,28], and (4) the general population [29]. Only data of subjects ≥ 50 years were included in this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Maartenskliniek at Nijmegen in 2010 were included if they were clinically diagnosed with generalized OA and referred by their rheumatologist for multidisciplinary treatment. A total of 147 patients completed baseline assessments [27].…”

Section: Patients Who Visited the Outpatient Department Of The Sintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of physical activity among different subsets of patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis and the general population

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the amount of physical activity (PA) among patients with different subsets of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and the general population. Secondary analyses of data of subjects ≥ 50 years from four studies: a study on the effectiveness of an educational program for OA patients in primary care (n = 110), a RCT on the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary selfmanagement program for patients with generalized OA in secondary care (n = 131), a survey among patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for end-stage OA (n = 510), and a survey among the general population in the Netherlands (n = 3374). The Short QUestionnaire to ASssess Health-enhancing physical activity (SQUASH) was used to assess PA in all 4 studies. Differences in PA were analysed by multivariable linear regression analyses, adjusted for age, body mass index and sex. In all groups, at least one-third of total time spent on PA was of at least moderate-intensity. Unadjusted mean duration (hours/week) of at least moderate-intensity PA was 15.3, 12.3, 18.1 and 17.8 for patients in primary, secondary care, post TJA, and the general population, respectively. Adjusted analyses showed that patients post TJA spent 5.6 h [95% CI: 1.5; 9.7] more time on PA of at least moderate-intensity than patients in secondary care. The reported amount of PA of at least moderate-intensity was high in different subsets of OA and the general population. Regarding the amount of PA in patients with different subsets of OA, there was a substantial difference between patients in secondary care and post TJA patients.

show abstract

Randomized trial of the effectiveness of a non-pharmacological multidisciplinary face-to-face treatment program on daily function compared to a telephone-based treatment program in patients with generalized osteoarthritis

Cited by 39 publications

References 39 publications

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Cost‐Utility and Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses of Face‐to‐Face Versus Telephone‐Based Nonpharmacologic Multidisciplinary Treatments for Patients With Generalized Osteoarthritis

Effect of the dr. Bart application on healthcare use and clinical outcomes in people with osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip in the Netherlands; a randomized controlled trial

Comparison of physical activity among different subsets of patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis and the general population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About