What should a toolkit to aid the delivery of therapeutic exercise for hip and knee osteoarthritis look like? Qualitative analysis of an international survey of 318 researchers, clinicians, and consumers by the OARSI Rehabilitation Discussion Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify important components of, and practical resources relevant for inclusion in, a toolkit to aid exercise delivery for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: An online international multi-disciplinary survey was conducted across 43 countries (139 clinicians, 44 people with hip/knee osteoarthritis and 135 osteoarthritis researchers). Participants were presented with the seeding statement 'Practical resources to aid the implementation of exercise for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis should…' and asked to provide up to 10 open text responses. Responses underwent refinement and qualitative content analysis to create domains and categories. RESULTS: Refinement of 551 open text responses yielded 72 unique statements relevant for analysis. Statements were organised into nine broad domains, suggesting that resources to aid exercise delivery should: (1) be easily accessible; (2) be of high quality; (3) be developed by, and for, stakeholders; (4) include different ways of delivering information; (5) include different types of resources to support exercise and non-exercise components of self-management; (6) include resources on recommended exercises and how to perform/progress them; (7) include tools to support motivation and track progress; (8) include resources to enable tailoring of the programme to the individual and; (9) facilitate access to professional and peer support. CONCLUSION: Our findings identified important components of, and practical resources to include within, a toolkit to aid delivery of exercise for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis. These findings have implications for exercise providers and lay the foundation for the development of a toolkit to help ensure exercise provision aligns with current international recommendations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".