OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) initial feelings of people with knee osteoarthritis who are unexpectedly offered telerehabilitation, and (2) if their experiences met their expectations, and their willingness to use telerehabilitation in the future. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study of 122 people with knee osteoarthritis who were randomized to receive physiotherapist-delivered telerehabilitation in a clinical trial. METHODS: At enrollment in the trial, participants were unaware care would be delivered via telerehabilitation. At completion, quantitative (Likert scales, analyzed descriptively) and qualitative (open-text, underwent content/thematic analysis) questions asked participants about their initial feelings when randomized to telerehabilitation, if experiences met expectations, and willingness to use telerehabilitation in the future. RESULTS: Data were collected between October 2021 to March 2023. At enrollment, 44 (36% of 122) participants initially felt negative toward telerehabilitation ( doubts about effectiveness, physiotherapist can’t see/touch, believe in-person is better, can’t communicate effectively, not good with technology), 18 (15%) were neutral, and 60 (49%) felt positive. After experiencing telerehabilitation, 43 (72%) people who were initially positive and 27 (61%) who were initially negative believed telerehabilitation exceeded their expectations ( easier than expected, surprised by benefits/effectiveness, strong rapport with physiotherapist, convenience). Twenty-eight (23% of 122) people were not at all or slightly willing to use telerehabilitation in future ( prefer hands-on, doesn’t allow adequate assessment/observation, prefer in-person, don’t like telerehabilitation). CONCLUSION: One in 2 people were positive about telerehabilitation from the outset, and 6 in 10 people who initially felt negative about telerehabilitation found that their experiences were better than expected. One in 4 people were unwilling to use telerehabilitation in the future, even after they had experienced it. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(9):594-607. Epub 11 June 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12383

Background Telerehabilitation is perceived as less effective than in-person care for musculoskeletal problems. We aimed to determine if physiotherapy video conferencing consultations were non-inferior to in-person consultations for chronic knee pain. Methods In this non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, we recruited primary care physiotherapists from 27 Australian clinics. Using computer-generated blocks, participants with chronic knee pain consistent with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by physiotherapist and clinic) in-person or telerehabilitation (ie, video conferencing) physiotherapist consultations. Participants and physiotherapists were unmasked to group assignment. Both groups had five consultations over 3 months for strengthening, physical activity, and education. Primary outcomes were knee pain (on a numerical rating scale of 0-10) and physical function (using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index of 0-68) at 3 months after randomisation. Primary analysis was by modified intention-to-treat using all available data. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001240134. Findings Between Dec 10, 2019, and June 17, 2022, 394 adults were enrolled, with 204 allocated to in-person care and 190 to telerehabilitation. 15 primary care physiotherapists were recruited. At 3 months, 383 (97%) participants provided information for primary outcomes and both groups reported improved pain (mean change 298, SD 223 for in-person care and 314, 187 for telerehabilitation) and function (1020, 1163 and 1075, 962, respectively). Telerehabilitation was non-inferior for pain (mean difference 016, 95% CI -026 to 057) and function (165, -023 to 353). The number of participants reporting adverse events was similar between groups (40 [21%] for in-person care and 35 [19%] for telerehabilitation) and none were serious. Interpretation Telerehabilitation with a physiotherapist is non-inferior to in-person care for chronic knee pain. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council. Copyright (c) 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate relationships between static foot posture, dynamic plantar foot forces and knee pain in people with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN:Data from 164 participants with symptomatic, moderate to severe radiographic medial knee OA were analysed. Knee pain was self-reported using a numerical rating scale (NRS; scores 0-10; higher scores worse) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale (KOOS; scores 0-100; lower scores worse). Static foot posture was assessed using clinical tests (foot posture index, foot mobility magnitude, navicular drop). Dynamic plantar foot forces (lateral, medial, whole foot, medial-lateral ratio, arch index) were measured using an in-shoe plantar pressure system while walking. Relationships between foot posture and plantar forces (independent variables) and pain (dependent variables) were evaluated using linear regression models, unadjusted and adjusted for sex, walking speed, Kellgren & Lawrence grade, shoe category, and body mass (for dynamic plantar foot forces). RESULTS:No measure of static foot posture was associated with any knee pain measure. Higher medial-lateral foot force ratio at midstance, and a higher arch index during overall stance, were weakly associated with higher knee pain on the NRS (regression coefficient = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.28) and KOOS (coefficient=3.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 5.35) pain scales, respectively. CONCLUSION:Dynamic plantar foot forces, but not static foot posture, were associated with knee pain in people with medial knee OA. However, the amount of pain explained by increases in plantar foot force was small; thus, these associations are unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

ObjectiveExplore the experiences of people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who received a very low energy diet (VLED) and exercise program from a physiotherapist.MethodsMixed methods study involving questionnaires (n = 42) and semistructured interviews (n = 22) with randomized control trial participants with knee OA who had received a 6-month physiotherapist-delivered VLED weight loss and exercise intervention. Questionnaires measured participant satisfaction and perceptions about physiotherapist's skills/knowledge in delivery of the dietary intervention (measured on 5-7 point Likert scales). Interviews explored participant's experiences and were analyzed based on the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsQuestionnaire response: 90%. Participants were satisfied with the program (95%), confident their physiotherapist had the required skills (84%) and knowledge (79%) to deliver the dietary intervention, felt comfortable talking to the physiotherapist about weight (74%), and would recommend others see a physiotherapist for the intervention they undertook (71%). The following four themes were developed from the interviews: (1) one-stop-shop of exercise and diet; (2) physiotherapist-delivered weight loss works (unsure initially; successfully lost weight); (3) physiotherapists knowledge and skills (exercise is forte; most thought physiotherapists had the necessary weight loss skills/knowledge, but some disagreed); and (4) physiotherapists have a role in weight loss (physiotherapists are intelligent, credible, and trustworthy; specific training in weight loss necessary).ConclusionThis study provides, to our knowledge, the first documented perspectives from people with OA who have received a physiotherapist-delivered weight loss intervention. Findings suggest physiotherapists may have a role in delivering a protocolized dietary intervention for some people with knee OA with overweight and obesity.

Introduction :Quality training and mentoring are crucial components of successful career development for early mid career researchers (EMCRs). This paper describes the overarching framework of novel ongoing national Training and Mentoring Programme Melbourne University Sydney Queensland:Impact (MUSQ:Impact) for musculoskeletal researchers, including a description of how it was set up and established, and lessons learned from its implementation.Results :The MUSQ:Impact programme spans four multidisciplinary musculoskeletal research teams across three universities in Australia, comprising 40-60 EMCR members. It was established to provide EMCRs with a unique learning environment and opportunities to gain exposure to, and network with, other national musculoskeletal research teams. Specific goals are to focus on core research competencies (e.g. writing skills, managing grant budgets, public speaking and media engagement, research translation), provide career mentoring, fund development activities (e.g. conference attendance, laboratory visits, skill development courses), and share training resources (e.g. data dictionaries, project summaries). A Steering Committee of 10-12 EMCR members, co-chaired by a senior researcher and one EMCR, is responsible for overseeing MUSQ:Impact and organising regular activities, including a monthly webinar series, a mentor/mentee scheme, annual group research retreats, annual infographic competition, and funding awards. An evaluation survey found that most participants perceived each activity to be beneficial and of value to their research career and development.Conclusion :This paper presents the structure of national training and mentoring programme that serves as a potential template for other research teams to adapt within their own contexts.

Background Chronic hip pain is common and disabling and is largely due to osteoarthritis (OA). Self-management is recommended by international OA clinical guidelines yet there are few effective treatment options. Footwear has been suggested as a self-management approach, given that foot motion influences hip forces. Currently, guidelines advocate ‘stable supportive’ shoes for people with OA, however this is based solely on expert opinion given no research has investigated whether these shoes are effective at reducing symptoms in people with OA-related chronic hip pain. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine if stable supportive footwear reduces hip pain during walking compared to flat flexible footwear in people with chronic hip pain consistent with OA. Methods This trial is a 6-month, participant- and assessor-blinded, pragmatic, comparative effectiveness, superiority RCT conducted in Melbourne, Australia. We are recruiting 120 participants aged over 45 years with chronic hip pain consistent with OA from the community. Following baseline assessment, participants are randomized to receive either i) stable supportive shoes or ii) flat flexible shoes. Participants are permitted to choose two different pairs of shoes in their allocated group from a range of options that match prespecified shoe classification criteria. They are advised to wear either pair of study shoes daily for a minimum of 6 hours each day for 6 months. The primary outcome is the 6-month change in average hip pain on walking in the last week. Secondary outcomes include changes in other measures of hip pain, symptoms, function in daily living and sports and recreation, hip-related quality of life, pain at other sites, adverse events, and physical activity. Other measures include co-intervention use, adherence, shoe comfort, descriptive characteristics, footwear characteristics, and objective foot measures. Discussion This RCT will determine whether stable supportive shoes reduce hip pain during walking more than flat flexible shoes in people with chronic hip pain. Outcomes will help to inform footwear recommendations in international clinical guidelines for OA-related chronic hip pain, which to date have been based solely on expert opinion because of an absence of RCTs. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12621001532897.

Introduction: Clinicians often report technical issues as a barrier to adopting videoconferencing service models. This descriptive study nested within a randomised controlled trial investigated the frequency, nature and impact of technical issues during video consultations.Methods: Physiotherapists (n = 15) underwent training to deliver knee osteoarthritis care focussed on education, strengthening and physical activity. In the randomised controlled trial, participants received five physiotherapy consultations either in-person or via videoconferencing (via Zoom) over 3-months; consultations were recorded and physiotherapists documented technical difficulties. In this study, available notes were audited (n = 169 initial and n = 147 final consultations) and nature and frequency of technical issues coded. Based on whether the clinician reported technical difficulties, three subgroups were created for analysis 1) in-person, 2) videocon-ferencing without technical issues, 3) videoconferencing with technical issues. Forty participants were randomly selected for each subgroup (n = 120). Duration of consultation components (set-up and introduction, assessment, exercise, physical activity, education and wrap-up), total consultation duration and duration of technical issues were compared across subgroups using one-way multivariate analyses of variance with mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results: Technical issues were documented in 37% (initial) and 19% (final) of video consultations. Problems with audio/video were most frequent, occurring in 36-21% (initial) and 18-24% (final) consultations. Audio/video problems were predominantly experienced during set-up, but did not significantly increase videoconferencing consultation duration compared to in-person consultation duration (MD (95% CI) 0.72 (-3.57 to 5.01) minutes).Discussion: While technical issues with videoconferencing consultations frequently occur, they are typically minor, transient and resolved quickly.

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in psychological characteristics between people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) from Japan and Australia. Sixty-two adults from Japan and 168 adults from Australia aged over 50 years with knee pain were included. Japanese data were collected from patients with knee OA diagnosed by medical doctors. Australian data were baseline data from a randomized controlled trial. Participants were not exercising regularly or receiving physiotherapy at the time. Psychological characteristics evaluated were depressive symptoms, fear of movement, and pain catastrophizing. These psychological characteristics were compared between the Japanese and Australian cohorts by calculating 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for difference of the mean. To test for equivalence, an equivalence margin was set at 0.5 standard deviations (SD) of the mean, where these SDs were based on the Australian data. When the 95%CI for the difference of the mean value lay entirely within the range of equivalence margin (i.e. between -0.5 and 0.5 times the Australian SD), the outcome was considered equivalent. There were no differences between the groups from Japan and Australia for depressive symptoms and the two groups were considered equivalent. There was no difference between groups for fear of movement, however the criteria for equivalence was not met. People from Japan with knee OA had higher scores for pain catastrophizing than people from Australia. The findings should be confirmed in other samples of people with knee OA from Japan and Australia due to the limitations of the participant recruitment strategy in this study. However, our findings suggest there may be a greater need to consider pain catastrophizing and build pain self-efficacy when managing Japanese people with knee OA. Implementation of international clinical practice guidelines for OA management may require different strategies in different countries due to different psychological profiles.

BACKGROUND:Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major problem globally. First-line management comprises education and self-management strategies. Online support groups may be a low-cost method of facilitating self-management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this randomized controlled pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the study design and implementation of an evidence-informed, expert-moderated, peer-to-peer online support group (My Knee Community) for people with knee OA. The impacts on psychological determinants of self-management, selected self-management behaviors, and health outcomes were secondary investigations. METHODS:This mixed methods study evaluated study feasibility (participant recruitment, retention, and costs), experimental intervention feasibility (acceptability and fidelity to the proposed design, including perceived benefit, satisfaction, and member engagement), psychological determinants (eg, self-efficacy and social support), behavioral measures, health outcomes, and harms. Of a total of 186, 63 (33.9%) participants (41/63, 65% experimental and 22/63, 35% control) with self-reported knee OA were recruited from 186 volunteers. Experimental group participants were provided membership to My Knee Community, which already had existing nonstudy members, and were recommended a web-based education resource (My Joint Pain). The control group received the My Joint Pain website recommendation only. Participants were not blinded to their group allocation or the study interventions. Participant-reported data were collected remotely using web-based questionnaires. A total of 10 experimental group participants also participated in semistructured interviews. The transcribed interview data and all forum posts by the study participants were thematically analyzed. RESULTS:Study feasibility was supported by acceptable levels of retention; however, there were low levels of engagement with the support group by participants: 15% (6/41) of participants did not log in at all; the median number of times visited was 4 times per participant; only 29% (12/41) of participants posted, and there were relatively low levels of activity overall on the forum. This affected the results for satisfaction (overall mean 5.9/10, SD 2.7) and perceived benefit (17/31, 55%: yes). There were no differences among groups for quantitative outcomes. The themes discussed in the interviews were connections and support, information and advice, and barriers and facilitators. Qualitative data suggest that there is potential for people to derive benefit from connecting with others with knee OA by receiving support and assisting with unmet informational needs. CONCLUSIONS:Although a large-scale study is feasible, the intervention implementation was considered unsatisfactory because of low levels of activity and engagement by members. We recommend that expectations about the support group need to be made clear from the outset. Additionally, the platform design needs to be more engaging and rewarding, and membership should only be offered to people willing to share their personal stories and who are interested in learning from the experiences of others. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001230145; http://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377958.

Abstract Background In people with knee osteoarthritis (OA), ongoing exercise participation, particularly with strengthening exercises, is central to management. Patient adherence to prescribed exercise typically declines once consultations with a clinician have ceased. Mobile applications (apps) can incorporate behaviour change techniques that may assist adherence, potentially optimising clinical outcomes. Methods This is a two-arm, pragmatic, superiority randomised trial. One hundred and eighty two Australians with chronic knee pain (clinical knee OA) and who have at least a mild level of physical dysfunction are being recruited. Participants are randomly allocated i) exercise (physiotherapist-prescribed exercise) or; ii) exercise plus app (physiotherapist-prescribed exercise plus access to the ‘My Exercise Messages’ mobile app). Exercise care comprises two videoconferencing consultations with a physiotherapist over two weeks (30 min each) for a strengthening exercise program, which is then conducted independently at home for 24 weeks without any further physiotherapist consultations. Participants are also provided with exercise resources to facilitate home-based exercise. Those randomised to exercise plus app will download the app after completing the two weeks of physiotherapy consultations and will be instructed by research staff to use the app for the 24 weeks of unsupervised home-based exercises. The app works by tracking completion of weekly exercise sessions, providing regular messages to facilitate weekly exercise and providing personalised messages to help overcome individual barriers to exercise participation. The two primary outcomes are i) self-reported physical function; and ii) number of days strengthening exercises were performed (previous fortnight), with a primary endpoint of 26 weeks and a secondary endpoint of 14 weeks. Secondary outcomes include knee pain severity; knee-related quality of life; global change; exercise program satisfaction; exercise self-efficacy; physical activity; sport and recreation function; another measure of exercise adherence; and willingness to undergo joint replacement. Process measures are also included. Discussion Findings will determine if a theory-informed mobile app improves exercise adherence and physical function in people with knee OA who have received a home-based strengthening program. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12621000724875. Prospectively registered 9/06/2021.

Introduction: International clinical guidelines advise stable supportive shoes for knee osteoarthritis (OA) however evidence suggests flat flexible shoes may reduce knee joint loading and symptoms. We hypothesised that flat flexible shoes would lead to greater improvements in pain and function, compared to stable supportive shoes. Methods: This was a two-arm, participant- and assessor-blinded comparative effectiveness randomised controlled trial. We recruited 164 people aged 50 years or older with knee pain on most days of the past month and moderate to severe radiographic medial tibiofemoral OA. Participants were randomised to receive either flat flexible shoes (n=82) or stable supportive shoes (n=82), classified based on: i) differences in shoe heel height/thickness, ii) shoe pitch, iii) arch support/motion control features, iv) sole flexibility and v) weight. Shoes were worn >6 hours/day for 6 months. Primary outcomes were changes in walking knee pain (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale, 0-68) at 6-months. Secondary outcomes included additional measures of pain, function, physical activity, quality of life and adverse events. Results: 164 participants were recruited and 161 (98%) completed 6-month primary outcomes. There was evidence of a between-group difference in change in walking knee pain favoring stable supportive shoes (mean difference=1.1 units (95%CI 0.5 to 1.8; p=0.001) but no strong evidence of difference in function (2.3 (-0.9 to 5.5; p=0.17)). Furthermore, 46 (58%) participants in the stable supportive group achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, compared to 32 (40%) in the flat flexible group (relative risk 1.56, 1.05 to 2.02). Improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain also favored stable supportive shoes (-5.3 (-10.0 to -0.5; p=0.03) and 0.7 (0.0 to 1.4; p=0.04), respectively), with no evidence of between-group differences in other secondary outcomes. Fewer participants reported adverse events with stable supportive shoes (n=12 (15%)) compared to flat flexible shoes (n=26 (32%); relative risk=0.46 (0.25 to 0.84; p=0.012)). Discussion: Flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes. Contrary to our hypothesis, stable supportive shoes improved knee pain on walking more than flat flexible shoes. Furthermore, a greater proportion of participants allocated to stable supportive shoes achieved the MCID in walking pain compared to those allocated to flat flexible shoes. Findings from this trial are the first to show that stable supportive shoes may be an inexpensive, low burden self-management strategy to improve pain associated with knee OA. Conflict of interest statement: My co-authors and I acknowledge that we have no conflict of interest of relevance to the submission of this abstract

Objective: To investigate knee contact forces (KCFs), and their relationships with knee pain, across grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) severity.Design: Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of 164 participants with medial knee OA. Radiographic severity was classified as mild (grade 2), moderate (grade 3) or severe (grade 4) using the Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) scale. Walking knee pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale. External knee adduction moment (external KAM) and internal muscle forces were used to calculate medial, lateral and total KCFs using a musculoskeletal computational model. Force-time series across stance phase of gait were compared across KL grades using Statistical Parametric Mapping. Associations between KCFs and pain across KL grades were assessed using linear models.Results: Medial KCFs during early and middle stance were higher in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2. In contrast, lateral KCFs were higher in those with KL2 compared to KL3 and KL4 in middle to late stance. The external loading component (i.e., KAM) of the medial KCF during middle to late stance was also greater in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2, whereas the internal (i.e., muscle) component was greater in those with KL3 and KL4 compared to KL3 during early stance. There were no associations between medial KCF and knee pain in any KL grade.Conclusions: Medial and lateral KCFs differ between mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee OA but are not associated with knee pain severity for any radiographic OA grade. (c) 2022 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Objectives To determine if motion control walking shoes are superior to neutral walking shoes in reducing knee pain on walking in people with lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA).Design Participant-blinded and assessor-blinded, comparative effectiveness, superiority randomised controlled trial.Setting Melbourne, Australia.Participants People with symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral OA from the community and our volunteer database.Intervention Participants were randomised to receive either motion control or neutral shoes and advised to wear them >6 hours/day over 6 months.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was change in average knee pain on walking over the previous week (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0–10) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity.Results We planned to recruit 110 participants (55 per arm) but ceased recruitment at 40 (n=18 motion control shoes, n=22 neutral shoes) due to COVID-19-related impacts. All 40 participants completed 6-month outcomes. There was no evidence that motion control shoes were superior to neutral shoes for the primary outcome of pain (mean between-group difference 0.4 NRS units, 95% CI −1.0 to 1.7) nor for any secondary outcome. The number of participants experiencing any adverse events was similar between groups (motion control shoes: n=5, 28%; neutral shoes: n=4, 18.2%) and were minor.Conclusions Motion control shoes were not superior to neutral shoes in improving knee pain on walking in symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral joint OA. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments in this important but under-researched knee OA subgroup.Trial registration number ACTRN12618001864213.

Background The delivery of physiotherapy via telehealth could provide more equitable access to services for patients. Videoconference-based telehealth has been shown to be an effective and acceptable mode of service delivery for exercise-based interventions for chronic knee pain; however, specific training in telehealth is required for physiotherapists to effectively and consistently deliver care using telehealth. The development and evaluation of training programs to upskill health care professionals in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) has also been identified as an important priority to improve OA care delivery. Objective This study aims to explore physiotherapists’ experiences with and perceptions of an e-learning program about best practice knee OA management (focused on a structured program of education, exercise, and physical activity) that includes telehealth delivery via videoconferencing. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using individual semistructured telephone interviews, nested within the Physiotherapy Exercise and Physical Activity for Knee Osteoarthritis randomized controlled trial, referred to as the PEAK trial. A total of 15 Australian physiotherapists from metropolitan and regional private practices were interviewed following the completion of an e-learning program. The PEAK trial e-learning program involved self-directed learning modules, a mock video consultation with a researcher (simulated patient), and 4 audited practice video consultations with pilot patients with chronic knee pain. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were thematically analyzed. Results A total of five themes (with associated subthemes) were identified: the experience of self-directed e-learning (physiotherapists were more familiar with in-person learning; however, they valued the comprehensive, self-paced web-based modules. Unwieldy technological features could be frustrating); practice makes perfect (physiotherapists benefited from the mock consultation with the researcher and practice sessions with pilot patients alongside individualized performance feedback, resulting in confidence and preparedness to implement new skills); the telehealth journey (although inexperienced with telehealth before training, physiotherapists were confident and able to deliver remote care following training; however, they still experienced some technological challenges); the whole package (the combination of self-directed learning modules, mock consultation, and practice consultations with pilot patients was felt to be an effective learning approach, and patient information booklets supported the training package); and impact on broader clinical practice (training consolidated and refined existing OA management skills and enabled a switch to telehealth when the COVID-19 pandemic affected in-person clinical care). Conclusions Findings provide evidence for the perceived effectiveness and acceptability of an e-learning program to train physiotherapists (in the context of a clinical trial) on best practice knee OA management, including telehealth delivery via videoconferencing. The implementation of e-learning programs to upskill physiotherapists in telehealth appears to be warranted, given the increasing adoption of telehealth service models for the delivery of clinical care.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated healthcare professionals to transition to telehealth service delivery, often with little preparation or training. E-learning is an accessible and scalable method of delivering health professional education yet there is little data on effectiveness of e-learning for training in telehealth. The PEAK (Physiotherapy Exercise and physical Activity for Knee osteoarthritis) e-learning modules were developed to upskill physiotherapists in evidence-based management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) via telehealth and in-person consultations. In the research setting, the PEAK e-learning modules are perceived by physiotherapists as effective when part of a comprehensive training program for a clinical trial. However, effectiveness of the PEAK e-learning modules on their own, in a ‘real-world’ setting, is unknown. OBJECTIVE Evaluate the uptake, effectiveness and implementation of the PEAK e-learning modules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS This is a longitudinal study. Participants were clinicians, researchers, educators and healthcare students who registered for access to the e-learning modules between April 1st and November 30th 2020. Uptake was evaluated by outcomes (reach across countries; referral sources; attrition) extracted from registration data and embedded within pre-training surveys in the Learning Management System. Effectiveness was evaluated by outcomes (confidence with video-conferencing; likelihood to use education, strengthening exercise and physical activity in a treatment plan for knee OA; usefulness of modules) in pre- and post-training (immediately upon completion) surveys in the Learning Management System. Implementation was evaluated by outcomes related to use of learnings, and usefulness of program elements, in an electronic survey administered four months after completion of modules. RESULTS Broad uptake was evident, with 6741 people from 97 countries registering for access. Amongst registrants, there were high levels of attrition, with 2463 (37%) commencing the e-learning program and pre-training survey and 1318 (20%) completing all modules and post-training survey. The e-learning program was effective, with learners who completed the modules demonstrating increased confidence with video-conferencing (mean change (95% CI) 3.1 (3.0, 3.3) numerical rating scale units), as well as increased likelihood to use education, strengthening exercise and physical activity in a treatment plan for people with knee OA, compared to pre-training. Implementation of learnings was evident at 4 months with almost all respondents indicating that the modules had changed/informed their usual practice in some way, and 90% of respondents recommending the e-learning modules and/or downloadable resources to others. More than half used their learnings to structure in-person consultations with patients (56%) and the patient information booklets in their clinical practice (53%). CONCLUSIONS This study provides evidence of uptake, effectiveness and implementation of learnings into clinical practice of an asynchronous self-directed e-learning program provided globally free-of-charge in a real-world setting. The PEAK e-learning modules offer clinicians an accessible educational course to learn about best-practice knee OA management, including telehealth delivery via video-conferencing.

BACKGROUND:Experts recommend that persons with knee osteoarthritis wear stable supportive shoes; however, evidence suggests that flat flexible shoes may be more beneficial.OBJECTIVE:To compare flat flexible with stable supportive shoes for knee osteoarthritis symptoms.DESIGN:Participant- and assessor-blinded randomized trial. (Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ACTRN12617001098325]).SETTING:Community.PARTICIPANTS:164 patients with moderate to severe symptomatic radiographic medial knee osteoarthritis.INTERVENTION:Flat flexible (n = 82) or stable supportive shoes (n = 82), worn for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months.MEASUREMENTS:Primary outcomes were changes in walking pain (measured by an 11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale of 0 to 68 points) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included additional pain and function measures, physical activity, and quality of life. Other measures included adverse events.RESULTS:Of 164 participants recruited, 161 (98%) completed 6-month primary outcomes. No evidence was found that flat flexible shoes were superior to stable supportive shoes in primary outcomes. Evidence did show a between-group difference in change in pain favoring stable supportive shoes (mean difference, 1.1 units [95% CI, 0.5 to 1.8 units]; P = 0.001) but not function (mean difference, 2.3 units [CI, -0.9 to 5.5 units]; P = 0.167). Improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain favored stable supportive shoes (mean difference, -5.3 units [CI, -10.0 to -0.5 units] and 0.7 units [CI, 0.0 to 1.4 units], respectively). Flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes for any secondary outcome. Fewer participants reported adverse events with stable supportive shoes (n = 12 [15%]) compared with flat flexible shoes (n = 26 [32%]) (risk difference, -0.17 [CI, -0.30 to -0.05]).LIMITATION:No "usual shoes" control group and a select patient subgroup, which may limit generalizability.CONCLUSION:Flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes. Contrary to our hypothesis, stable supportive shoes improved knee pain on walking more than flat flexible shoes.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Health and Medical Research Council.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated clinicians to transition to telehealth, often with little preparation or training. The Physiotherapy Exercise and Physical Activity for Knee Osteoarthritis (PEAK) e-learning modules were developed to upskill physiotherapists in management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) via telehealth and in-person. In the research setting, the e-learning modules are perceived by physiotherapists as effective when they are part of a comprehensive training program for a clinical trial. However, the effectiveness of the modules on their own in a real-world setting is unknown. Objective This study aims to evaluate the reach, effectiveness, adoption, and implementation of PEAK e-learning modules. Methods This longitudinal study was informed by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Participants were clinicians, researchers, educators, and health care students who registered for access to the modules between April 1 and November 30, 2020. Reach was evaluated by outcomes (countries, referral sources, and attrition) extracted from registration data and embedded within precourse surveys in the Learning Management System (LMS). Effectiveness was evaluated by outcomes (confidence with videoconferencing; likelihood of using education, strengthening exercise, and physical activity in a treatment plan for knee OA; usefulness of modules) measured using a 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS; score range from 1=not confident or likely or useful at all to 10=extremely confident or likely or useful) in pre- and postcourse (on completion) surveys in the LMS. Adoption and implementation were evaluated by demographic and professional characteristics and outcomes related to the use of learning and usefulness of program elements (measured via a 4-point Likert scale, from not at all useful to extremely useful) in a survey administered 4 months after module completion. Results Broad reach was achieved, with 6720 people from 97 countries registering for access. Among registrants, there were high levels of attrition, with 36.65% (2463/6720) commencing the program and precourse survey and 19.61% (1318/6720) completing all modules and the postcourse survey. The program was effective. Learners who completed the modules demonstrated increased confidence with videoconferencing (mean change 3.1, 95% CI 3.0-3.3 NRS units) and increased likelihood of using education, strengthening and physical activity in a knee OA treatment plan, compared to precourse. Adoption and implementation of learning (n=149 respondents) occurred at 4 months. More than half of the respondents used their learning to structure in-person consultations with patients (80/142, 56.3%) and patient information booklets in their clinical practice (75/142, 52.8%). Conclusions Findings provide evidence of the reach and effectiveness of an asynchronous self-directed e-learning program in a real-world setting among physiotherapists. The e-learning modules offer clinicians an accessible educational course to learn about best-practice knee OA management, including telehealth delivery via videoconferencing. Attrition across the e-learning program highlights the challenges of keeping learners engaged in self-directed web-based learning.

BackgroundThe therapeutic alliance between patients and physical therapists has been shown to influence clinical outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain when consulting in-person. However, no studies have examined whether the therapeutic alliance developed between patients with knee osteoarthritis and physical therapists during telephonic consultations influences clinical outcomes. ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate whether the therapeutic alliance between patients with knee osteoarthritis and physical therapists measured after the second consultation is associated with outcomes following telephone-delivered exercise and advice. MethodsSecondary analysis of 87 patients in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial allocated to receive 5 to 10 telephone consultations with one of 8 physical therapists over a period of 6 months, involving education and prescription of a strengthening and physical activity program. Separate regression models investigated the association between patient and therapist ratings of therapeutic alliance (measured after the second consultation using the Working Alliance Inventory Short Form) and outcomes (pain, function, self-efficacy, quality of life, global change, adherence to prescribed exercise, physical activity) at 6 and 12 months, with relevant covariates included. ResultsThere was some evidence of a weak association between patient ratings of the alliance and some outcomes at 6 months (improvements in average knee pain: regression coefficient −0.10, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.03; self-efficacy: 0.16, 0.04-0.28; global improvement in function: odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.04-1.39, and overall improvement: odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51; but also with worsening in fear of movement: regression coefficient −0.13, 95% CI −0.23 to −0.04). In addition, there was some evidence of a weak association between patient ratings of the alliance and some outcomes at 12 months (improvements in self-efficacy: regression coefficient 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.27; global improvement in both function, odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.37; and pain, odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.30; and overall improvement: odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.42). The data suggest that associations between therapist ratings of therapeutic alliance and outcomes were not strong, except for improved quality of life at 12 months (regression coefficient 0.01, 95% CI 0.0003-0.01). ConclusionsHigher patient ratings, but not higher therapist ratings, of the therapeutic alliance were weakly associated with improvements in some clinical outcomes and with worsening in one outcome. Although the findings suggest that patients who perceive a stronger alliance with their therapist may achieve better clinical outcomes, the observed relationships were generally weak and unlikely to be clinically significant. The limitations include the fact that measures of therapeutic alliance have not been validated for use in musculoskeletal physical therapy settings. There was a risk of type 1 error; however, findings were interpreted on the basis of clinical significance rather than statistical significance alone. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000054415; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369204