Physical Therapist–Delivered Pain Coping Skills Training and Exercise for Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a 12-week physical therapist-delivered combined pain coping skills training (PCST) and exercise (PCST/exercise) is more efficacious and cost effective than either treatment alone for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was an assessor-blinded, 3-arm randomized controlled trial in 222 people (73 PCST/exercise, 75 exercise, and 74 PCST) ages ≥50 years with knee OA. All participants received 10 treatments over 12 weeks plus a home program. PCST covered pain education and training in cognitive and behavioral pain coping skills, exercise comprised strengthening exercises, and PCST/exercise integrated both. Primary outcomes were self-reported average knee pain (visual analog scale, range 0-100 mm) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, range 0-68) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included other pain measures, global change, physical performance, psychological health, physical activity, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. Analyses were by intent-to-treat methodology with multiple imputation for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 201 participants (91%), 181 participants (82%), and 186 participants (84%) completed week 12, 32, and 52 measurements, respectively. At week 12, there were no significant between-group differences for reductions in pain comparing PCST/exercise versus exercise (mean difference 5.8 mm [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.4, 13.0]) and PCST/exercise versus PCST (6.7 mm [95% CI -0.6, 14.1]). Significantly greater improvements in function were found for PCST/exercise versus exercise (3.7 units [95% CI 0.4, 7.0]) and PCST/exercise versus PCST (7.9 units [95% CI 4.7, 11.2]). These differences persisted at weeks 32 (both) and 52 (PCST). Benefits favoring PCST/exercise were seen on several secondary outcomes. Cost effectiveness of PCST/exercise was not demonstrated. CONCLUSION: This model of care could improve access to psychological treatment and augment patient outcomes from exercise in knee OA, although it did not appear to be cost effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".