The knitting community-based trial for older women with osteoarthritis of the hands: design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of hand osteoarthritis (HOA) has been reported to be higher amongst women over 50 years old (66%) compared to men of the same age (34%). Although exercise therapy has been shown effective in reducing symptoms and disability associated with HOA, adherence to treatment programs remains low. The primary objective of this RCT is to examine the effectiveness of a 12-week knitting program for morning stiffness (primary outcome) and pain relief (secondary outcome) 2 h post-wakening in females (aged 50 to 85 years old) with mild to moderate hand osteoarthritis (HOA). METHODS/DESIGN: A single-blind, two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel group design will be used to reach this objective and compare results to a control group receiving an educational pamphlet on osteoarththritis (OA) designed by the Arthritis Society. The premise behind the knitting program is to use a meaningful occupation as the main component of an exercise program. The knitting program will include two components: 1) bi-weekly 20-min knitting sessions at a senior's club and 2) 20-min home daily knitting sessions for the five remaining weekdays. Participants assigned to the control group will be encouraged to read the educational pamphlet and continue with usual routine. Pain, morning stiffness, hand function, self-efficacy and quality of life will be measured at baseline, six weeks, 12 weeks (end of program) with standardized tools. We hypothesize that participants in the knitting program will have significant improvements in all clinical outcomes compared to the control group. A published case study as well as the preliminary results of a feasibility study as examined through a 6-week pre-post study (n = 5 women with HOA) involving 20-min daily knitting morning sessions led to this proposed randomized controlled trial research protocol. This article describes the intervention, the empirical evidence to support it. DISCUSSION: This knitting RCT has the potential to enhance our understanding of the daily HOA symptoms control and exercise adherence, refine functional exercise recommendations in this prevalent disease, and reduce the burden of disability in older women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ACTRN12617000843358) registered on 7/06/2017.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".