Measuring important activities for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims Some patient-reported outcome measures ask questions about fixed (ie standardised) activities. Other patient-reported outcome measures ask questions about activities that patients choose or generate. However, patients' appraisals of the importance of fixed and generated activities have not been directly compared and little is known about the construct of activity importance. The aim of this study was to compare patients' importance ratings for fixed and generated activities. It also examined relationships among patients' ratings of activity importance, pain and physical function. Methods Within a prospective cross-sectional design, 60 participants with knee osteoarthritis completed the Brief Pain Inventory, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, as well as the McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Questionnaire and a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form, which were modified to measure the importance of generated or fixed activities respectively. Results Participants rated generated activities as more important than fixed activities (P<0.01). They also gave higher importance ratings for fixed activities that they performed than fixed activities that they did not perform (P<0.01). The importance of the generated activities correlated with the Brief Pain Inventory (P<0.05) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (P<0.01), but the fixed activities' importance did not. Participants preferred to rate generated activities more than fixed activities (63.8%) and believed that their ratings of generated activities would better inform physicians than fixed activities (55.0%). Conclusions The results from this study identified benefits of including generated activities within patient-reported outcome measures and clarified the construct of activity importance for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Implications for practice Allied health professionals may maximise activity importance for their patients by focusing on patient-generated activities. However, the best instructions for collecting patient-generated activities are unknown.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".