| Literature DB >> 30552242 |
Asma S Alrushud1,2, Alison B Rushton1,3, Gurjit Bhogal4, Fraser Pressdee4, Carolyn A Greig1,3,5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common chronic illness among older adults. Up to the submission date of this protocol, there are no published UK studies reporting the efficacy of a combined intervention programme of physical activity and dietary restriction on the musculoskeletal function of obese older adults with knee OA in spite of the clinical recommendation for exercise and diet for people with knee OA. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a combined dietary restriction and physical activity intervention programme and collect preliminary data. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm intervention study is scheduled to begin in September 2017 and conclude in November 2018. It will take place at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital (ROH), Birmingham and the School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences (SportExR), University of Birmingham. Participants will receive a physiotherapy usual care programme for knee OA for 1 month, after which they will continue to exercise in their local gym/leisure facility for 3 months. Participants will also follow dietary restriction throughout the 4-month intervention. Mixed analysis techniques will be used to analyse the quantitative and qualitative outcome measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: It is approved by ROH R&D Foundation Trust and the Health Research Authority. The Consort Guidelines and checklist will be reviewed prior to generating any publications for the trial to ensure they meet the standards required for submission to high-quality peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12906938. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: diet; exercise; feasibility trials; knee osteoarthritis; obesity; older adults; usual care
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30552242 PMCID: PMC6303593 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Feasibility measurement categories
| Categories | For participants | For physiotherapy staff |
| 1. Efficacy | Do they report benefit? | Do they notice improvement? |
| 2. Adherence | Using sheet for recording their gym sessions | Record participant attendance |
| 3. Adaption | Does the intervention need adaption, for example, time or procedure? | Does the intervention require adaptation? |
| 4. Acceptability |
Satisfaction with programme and outcomes Perceived appropriateness Expressed interest |
Satisfaction with participants’ outcomes Intent to use again Fit within hospital culture Perceived positive or negative effects on their time, gym availability |
| 5. Implementation and practicality | Degree of execution, success or failure of execution Positive/negative effects on target participants Ability of participants to carry out intervention activities and cost | Amount, type of resources needed to implement Factors affecting implementation ease or difficulty, efficiency, speed or quality of implementation |
| 6. Integration and expansion | Do they recommend expanding the intervention to other hospitals? |
Does it fit with the hospital goals and physiotherapy department goals? Is cost suitable to organisation wishing to include it? Could it be applied in the future and how? Any positive or negative effects on the ROH or the department? |
ROH, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital.
Figure 1Flowchart of Dietary Restriction and Physical Activity (DRPA) trial flow diagram. BMI, body mass index; CI, chief investigator; PT, physiotherapy; ROM, range of motion; ROH, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital; SportExR, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
Summary of statistical tests
| Variable | Form of analysis | How it will be reported | Test |
| Age (year) | Continuous | M (SD) | Means and SD |
| Gender | Categorical | Frequency and percentage | Frequency |
| Height (m) | Continuous | M (SD) | Means and SD |
| Weight (kg) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| BMI (kg/m²) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| WC (m) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| WOMAC | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Knee ROM (degree) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Lower limb muscle power | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Physical function (stair climb and timed up-and-go) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Pain intensity (WOMAC) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Quality of life (SF-36) | Continuous | M (SD) | Repeated measures ANOVA |
| Body composition | Continuous | M (SD) | Paired t-tests |
| Markers of joint remodelling | Continuous | M (SD) | Paired t-tests |
| Associations between changes in body weight, knee pain, BMI and markers of joint remodelling | Continuous | r | Pearson’s correlation |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; ROM, range of motion; SF-36, short form-36.
Success criteria of the combined intervention programme according to the feasibility categories, using the participants and physiotherapy department staff outcomes
| Feasibility categories | Participants quantitative outcomes | Participants qualitative outcomes | Physiotherapy questionnaire |
| The combined intervention programme will be considered feasible if: | The combined intervention programme will be considered feasible if: | The combined intervention programme will be considered feasible if there is consensus across the PT department staff to support the following points: | |
| 1. Efficacy | Significant changes p<0.05 on the planned | When they notice any improvement in the participants outcomes and think that the combined intervention programme is better than usual care | |
| 2. Adherence | >80% in exercise compliance | Adherence to the classes is similar compared with usual care | |
| 3. Adaption | None or just minor changes suggested | The combined programme does not require adaption | |
| 4. Acceptability | Participants report (during focus group discussion) that they are satisfied and the intervention programme is fitted with their activities of daily living | They are satisfied with participants outcomes | |
| 5. Implementation and practicality | <10% missing data in each completed questionnaire (WOMAC and SF-36) | They would not need any additional resources to implement the programme | |
| 6. Integration and expansion | Participants recommend the combined intervention programme to other patients | The programme could be applied in future |
PT, Physiotherapy; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; SF-36, Short Form-36; ROH, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital.