Effectiveness of an internet-delivered exercise and pain-coping skills training intervention for persons with chronic knee pain: A randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\tBackground: Effective, accessible biopsychosocial treatments are needed to manage chronic knee pain on a population level. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Internet-delivered, physiotherapist-prescribed home exercise and pain-coping skills training (PCST). Design: Pragmatic parallel-group randomized, controlled trial. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000243617) Setting: Community (Australia). Patients: 148 persons aged 50 years or older with chronic knee pain. Intervention: The intervention was delivered via the Internet and included educational material, 7 videoconferencing (Skype [Microsoft]) sessions with a physiotherapist for home exercise, and a PCST program over 3 months. The control was Internetbased educational material. Measurements: Primary outcomes were pain during walking (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were knee pain, quality of life, global change (overall, pain, and functional status), arthritis selfefficacy, coping, and pain catastrophizing. Outcomes were also measured at 9 months. Results: Of participants enrolled, 139 (94%) completed primary outcome measures at 3 months and 133 (90%) completed secondary outcome measures at 9 months; multiple imputation was used for missing data. The intervention group reported significantly more improvement in pain (mean difference, 1.6 units [95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3 units]) and physical function (mean difference, 9.3 units [CI, 5.9 to 12.7 units]) than the control group at 3 months, and improvements were sustained at 9 months (mean differences, 1.1 units [CI, 0.4 to 1.8 units] and 7.0 units [CI, 3.4 to 10.5 units], respectively). Intervention participants showed significantly more improvement in most secondary outcomes than control participants. At both time points, significantly more intervention participants reported global improvements. Limitation: Participants were unblinded. Conclusion: For persons with chronic knee pain, Internetdelivered, physiotherapist-prescribed exercise and PCST provide clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function that are sustained for at least 6 months.\n\t\t\t\t
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".