GLA:D to Be Walking Better: Change in Self-Reported Difficulty Walking After Exercise Therapy and Education in Persons With Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Difficulty walking is a primary reason that individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA) seek care. We examined the change in self-reported difficulty walking after participating in the Good Life With Osteoarthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) 8-week education and exercise program and assessed patient factors associated with improvement in difficulty walking. METHODS: This was a registry-based cohort study of individuals in Denmark with knee OA who enrolled in GLA:D. Assessments were administered at baseline, program completion (~3 months), and 12 months. Our prespecified primary outcome was change in self-reported difficulty walking assessed using the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level walking item. Exposures included sociodemographic factors, measures of OA illness severity, comorbidities, and psychological factors. In those with baseline moderate/severe difficulty walking, using multivariable regression analysis, we assessed the relationship between exposures of interest and improvement to no/slight difficulty walking. RESULTS: We included 5262 participants. Of 2178 (41.4%) individuals with baseline moderate/severe difficulty walking, 51.4% and 58.3% reported no/slight difficulty walking at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Greater self-efficacy, younger age, female sex, lower BMI, less intense knee pain, and better function at baseline were associated with greater likelihood of improvement in difficulty walking, whereas severe difficulty walking at baseline and back pain intensity were associated with decreased likelihood of improvement. CONCLUSION: More than half of those with baseline difficulty walking experienced substantial improvement after completing GLA:D and this improvement was maintained at 12 months. Several patient factors were associated with the outcome, suggesting that some individuals may require additional support and extended treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".