MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777469204 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017042

Barriers and facilitators of physical activity in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

2017· review· en· W2777469204 on OpenAlexaff
Archontissa M. Kanavaki, Alison Rushton, Nikolaos Efstathiou, Asma Alrushud, Rainer Klocke, Abhishek Abhishek, Joan L. Duda

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research CouncilVersus Arthritis
KeywordsMedicineCritical appraisalQualitative researchPsychological interventionChecklistPopulationThematic analysisMEDLINEBiopsychosocial modelHealth carePhysical therapySystematic reviewNursingAlternative medicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity (PA), including engagement in structured exercise, has a key role in the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, maintaining a physically active lifestyle is a challenge for people with OA. PA determinants in this population need to be understood better so that they can be optimised by public health or healthcare interventions and social policy changes. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the existing qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators of PA for patients with hip or knee OA. Secondary objective is to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between (1) lifestyle PA and exercise and (2) PA uptake and maintenance. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Grey literature and qualitative journals were searched. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme-Qualitative checklist and Lincoln and Guba's criteria were used for quality appraisal. Thematic synthesis was applied. FINDINGS: Ten studies were included, seven focusing on exercise regimes, three on overall PA. The findings showed a good fit with the biopsychosocial model of health. Aiming at symptom relief and mobility, positive exercise experiences and beliefs, knowledge, a 'keep going' attitude, adjusting and prioritising PA, having healthcare professionals' and social support emerged as PA facilitators. Pain and physical limitations; non-positive PA experiences, beliefs and information; OA-related distress; a resigned attitude; lack of motivation, behavioural regulation, professional support and negative social comparison with coexercisers were PA barriers. All themes were supported by high and medium quality studies. Paucity of data did not allow for the secondary objectives to be explored. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal a complex interplay among physical, personal including psychological and social-environmental factors corresponding to the facilitation and hindrance of PA, particularly exercise, engagement. Further research on the efficacy of individualised patient education, psychological interventions or social policy change to promote exercise engagement and lifestyle PA in individuals with lower limb OA is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016030024.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations301
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207