Feasibility and Acceptability of Instructions of Daily Care in Overweight and Obese Knee Osteoarthritis Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) is a weight-bearing joint disease and is more common in overweight and obese persons. The objective of the study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of Instructions of Daily Care (IDC) on pain, mobility, and Body Mass Index (BMI) among knee OA participants who are overweight or obese. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was an open-label randomized controlled trial of six weeks. Forty overweight and obese participants with knee OA were randomly divided into two groups by a computer-generated number. The participants in the Instruction Group (IG) were provided with leaflets explaining IDC for the duration of six weeks. Both groups were instructed to take low doses of the non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) on alternate days. The outcome measures were pain, mobility and BMI. The feasibility and acceptability of knee pain and mobility were assessed using a questionnaire designed by experts in rehabilitation. RESULTS: Participants in the IG reported more statistically significant pain relief as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (p=0.001) and improvement in mobility (p=0.000) assessed by the Timed Up and Go test score after six weeks compared to the Control Group (CG). Both groups did not demonstrate any significant change in BMI (p-value > 0.05). The results of descriptive statistics showed a significantly higher satisfaction score for participants who received a combination of IDC and NSAIDs, indicating an acceptable intervention. CONCLUSION: The IDC is effective and acceptable in terms of improving pain and mobility and should be recommended as the usual care of treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".