MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158663767 · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-60

Patient and provider interventions for managing osteoarthritis in primary care: protocols for two randomized controlled trials

2012· article· en· W2158663767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelli D. Allen, Hayden B. Bosworth, Dorothea S Brock, Jennifer Chapman, Ranee Chatterjee, Cynthia J. Coffman, Santanu Datta, Rowena J Dolor, Amy S. Jeffreys, Karen A. Juntilla, Jennifer Kruszewski, Laurie E. Marbrey, Jennifer R McDuffie, Eugene Ž. Oddone, Nina Sperber, Mary P Sochacki, Catherine Stanwyck, Jennifer L. Strauss, William S. Yancy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthHealth Services Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyReferralRandomized controlled trialSports medicineHealth careClinical trialVeterans AffairsIntervention (counseling)Knee painMEDLINEOsteoarthritisFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee are among the most common chronic conditions, resulting in substantial pain and functional limitations. Adequate management of OA requires a combination of medical and behavioral strategies. However, some recommended therapies are under-utilized in clinical settings, and the majority of patients with hip and knee OA are overweight and physically inactive. Consequently, interventions at the provider-level and patient-level both have potential for improving outcomes. This manuscript describes two ongoing randomized clinical trials being conducted in two different health care systems, examining patient-based and provider-based interventions for managing hip and knee OA in primary care. METHODS / DESIGN: One study is being conducted within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and will compare a Combined Patient and Provider intervention relative to usual care among n = 300 patients (10 from each of 30 primary care providers). Another study is being conducted within the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium and will compare Patient Only, Provider Only, and Combined (Patient + Provider) interventions relative to usual care among n = 560 patients across 10 clinics. Participants in these studies have clinical and / or radiographic evidence of hip or knee osteoarthritis, are overweight, and do not meet current physical activity guidelines. The 12-month, telephone-based patient intervention focuses on physical activity, weight management, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involves provision of patient-specific recommendations for care (e.g., referral to physical therapy, knee brace, joint injection), based on evidence-based guidelines. Outcomes are collected at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months. The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (self-reported pain, stiffness, and function), and secondary outcomes are the Short Physical Performance Test Protocol (objective physical function) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (depressive symptoms). Cost effectiveness of the interventions will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: Results of these two studies will further our understanding of the most effective strategies for improving hip and knee OA outcomes in primary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01130740 (VA); NCT 01435109 (NIH).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.012
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207