Moderators of the Effect of a Self-directed Digitally Delivered Exercise Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Exploratory Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND A 24-week self-directed digitally delivered intervention was found to improve pain and function in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is possible that this intervention may be better suited to certain subgroups of people with knee OA compared to others. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore whether certain individual baseline characteristics moderate the effects of a self-directed digitally delivered intervention on changes in pain and function over 24 weeks in people with knee OA. METHODS An exploratory analysis was conducted on data from a randomized controlled trial involving 206 people with a clinical diagnosis of knee OA. This trial compared a self-directed digitally delivered intervention comprising of web-based education, exercise, and physical activity program supported by automated exercise behavior change mobile phone text messages to web-based education alone (control). The primary outcomes were changes in overall knee pain (assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale [WOMAC]) at 24 weeks. Five baseline patient characteristics were selected as the potential moderators: (1) number of comorbidities, (2) number of other painful joints, (3) pain self-efficacy, (4) exercise self-efficacy, and (5) self-perceived importance of exercise. Separate linear regression models for each primary outcome and each potential moderator were fit, including treatment group, moderator, and interaction between treatment group and moderator, adjusting for the outcome at baseline. RESULTS There was evidence that pain self-efficacy moderated the effect of the intervention on physical function compared to the control at 24 weeks (interaction P=.02). Posthoc assessment of the mean change in WOMAC function by treatment arm showed that each 1-unit increase in baseline pain self-efficacy was associated with a 1.52 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.78) unit improvement in the control group. In contrast, a reduction of 0.62 (95% CI –1.93 to 0.68) units was observed in the intervention group with each unit increase in pain self-efficacy. There was only weak evidence that pain self-efficacy moderated the effect of the intervention on pain and that number of comorbidities, number of other painful joints, exercise self-efficacy, or exercise importance moderated the effect of the intervention on pain or function. CONCLUSIONS With the exception of pain self-efficacy, which moderated changes in function but not pain, we found limited evidence that our selected baseline patient characteristics moderated intervention outcomes. This indicates that people with a range of baseline characteristics respond similarly to the unsupervised digitally delivered exercise intervention. As these findings are exploratory in nature, they require confirmation in future studies.
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 | 0.042 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".