“Much better than I thought it was going to be”: Telehealth delivered group-based education and exercise was perceived as acceptable among people with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To understand patient perceived acceptability of participating in a telehealth delivered group-based education and exercise-therapy program for knee osteoarthritis. Design: This qualitative study involved semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with knee osteoarthritis patients who have completed the Good Living with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®) program via telehealth or in-person. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed using an inductive content analysis approach, focusing on themes related to telehealth. Results: Nineteen participants [12 (63%) female, mean aged 62 years, range 49-72 years] were included. Eleven (58%) received GLA:D® via telehealth and 8 (42%) attended in-person sessions. Two overarching themes (6 sub-themes) related to telehealth perceived acceptability were identified: 1) Perceptions of telehealth acceptability was highly influenced by exposure. Individuals who had received telehealth considered it easy, convenient, and flexible, whereas telehealth was perceived to be inferior and misunderstood by those without exposure. 2) Telehealth participants reported similar program benefits to in-person participants, including reduced fear of pain and joint damage, changed beliefs in value of exercise, and stated improvements in pain and function. Conclusions: Telehealth delivery of group-based education and exercise-therapy for knee osteoarthritis was acceptable for people who had experienced it and provides similar benefits as in-person care for pain and beliefs about the safety and value of exercise. Wider implementation of telehealth group-based education and exercise-therapy may improve access to high value care for people with knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".