Expert-Moderated Peer-to-Peer Online Support Group for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Mixed Methods Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».