Implementing a guideline‐based education and exercise program for people with knee and hip osteoarthritis—Practical experiences of providers and clinic leaders: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Good Life with osteoArthritis: Denmark (GLA:DTM) program is an evidence‐based education and exercise program designed for individuals with symptomatic hip and knee osteoarthritis. Launched in Denmark, it has been implemented across Europe, Australia, and North America. The authors assessed the feasibility of GLADTM implementation in Canada (Alberta) by applying the RE‐AIM framework. An evaluation objective was to identify factors impacting the implementation of the program in both publicly funded and private rehabilitation settings, based on the experience of the initial cohort of providers and clinic leaders who set up and delivered the program. Methods Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with GLA:DTM‐trained providers, managers, or directors of clinics across Alberta. Braun and Clarke's thematic approach was used to code the data and identify emergent categories and themes. Those relevant to the implementation were identified and by consensus, categorized as facilitators of and challenges to the implementation process. Results Eighteen GLA:DTM ‐trained providers and three clinic leaders from a range of clinical settings completed an interview. Seven common themes emerged in relation to implementation across the study settings. Three themes reflect facilitators of implementation (program acceptability by providers, multi‐level support mechanisms, and program flexibility) and four implementation challenges (direct and indirect costs, lack of external referrals, program access issues, and lack of suitable space). The initial implementation of the program was exploratory with limited focus on long‐term sustainability. Conclusions The GLA:DTM program is a translatable program that can be implemented with relative ease in both public and private rehabilitation settings; however, costs, space constraints, and having an adequate referral base were noted challenges. Further work is warranted to explore equitable access across public and private settings and program sustainability.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".