Exploring the experiences of osteoarthritic patients awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty : informing and evaluating the effectivess of a health maintenance intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Name: Gail Elizabeth Parsons Date: August, 2011 Title of thesis: Exploring The Experiences of Osteoarthritic Patients Awaiting Hip And Knee Arthroplasty: Informing and evaluating the effectiveness of a health maintenance intervention. Aim of the study To explore the lived experiences of patients with severe osteoarthritis of the hip and knee joint whilst awaiting primary joint replacement surgery. To utilise findings from interviews and evidence-based literature to develop a health maintenance clinic (HMC) intervention, followed by its evaluation. Methodology A mixed method design was adopted: an exploratory approach incorporating descriptive phenomenology consisting of unstructured interviews with participants awaiting their hip or knee replacement surgery, followed by a randomised control trial (RCT) to compare the existing preoperative assessment service with a health maintenance clinic intervention. Setting and sample A purposeful sample of 6 people with osteoarthritis awaiting joint replacement were interviewed. In addition, a sample of 250 people (mean age 73 years) were recruited via an orthopaedic out-patient department for the RCT following referral to the waiting list for hip or knee replacement surgery. Outcome measures The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) tool was used at the time of referral to waiting list and again during the preoperative assessment appointment. The Hospital Patient Satisfaction Index (HP SI) was administered at the preoperative assessment appointment. Number of surgery postponements was also recorded. Results Six themes emerged from the interview data: living and coping with pain; not being able to walk and move around; coping with every day activities; how others see me; help, advice and support whilst awaiting surgery; effect upon family, friends and helpers. The RCT revealed; no significant difference between the total WOMAC scores between the two groups. Participants attending the HMC (experimental group) were significantly more satisfied with their care. There was no relationship between satisfaction and WOMAC scores. There was a significant difference in the number of postponements of surgery between groups, with a greater proportion of participants proceeding to surgery in the experimental group. Conclusion The interview data generated new knowledge of the experiences, concerns and symptoms of individuals waiting for primary hip and knee replacement surgery. Health maintenance provision 'tailored' to the individual was revolutionary at the time of the study. Patient satisfaction was significantly high and the number of postponements of surgery was significantly less for those attending the clinic.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".