Management of chronic knee pain: A survey of patient preferences and treatment received

Rehabilitation Research Unit (King's College London), Dulwich Community Hospital, London, UK.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Impact Factor: 1.72). 10/2008; 9(1):123. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-9-123
Source: PubMed


A range of interventions exist for the management of knee pain, but patient preferences for treatment are not clear. In this study the management received by people with chronic knee pain, their management preferences and reasons for these preferences were recorded.
At baseline assessment of a clinical trial of rehabilitation for chronic knee pain, 415 participants were asked about their i) previous management, ii) preferred treatment, if any, iii) whether they would undergo knee surgery and iv) reasons for their preferences.
Previous management--Medication was the most common treatment, followed by physiotherapy, 39 participants had received no treatment. Preferences--166 patients expressed no treatment preference. Of those who expressed a preference the most popular option was physiotherapy, whilst not having surgery was the third most frequent response. The most common reason for preferring physiotherapy and not wanting surgery was prior experience.Willingness to accept surgery--390 participants were not waiting for knee replacement surgery, and overall 81% would not accept surgery if offered, usually because pain was not perceived to be severe enough to warrant surgery.
Most chronic knee pain is managed with medication despite concerns about safety, efficacy and cost, management guidelines recommendations and people's management preferences. Previous experience and perceptions of need were major determinants of people's preferences, but many people were unaware of management options. Appreciating patient preferences and provision of more information about management options are important in facilitating informed patient/clinician discussion and agreement.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael Hurley, Jan 14, 2015
1 Follower
12 Reads
  • Source
    • "Such people prefer to be aware of the pharmacologic and treatment options available and then decide on a course of management. If knowledge about the available options is lacking, however, the treatment choices are more limited, and, importantly, this may have an impact on adherence to treatment [14]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our aim in the present study was to determine whether a disease-specific self-management program for primary care patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee (the Osteoarthritis of the Knee Self-Management Program (OAK)) implemented by health care professionals would achieve and maintain clinically meaningful improvements in health-related outcomes compared with a control group. Medical practitioners referred 146 primary care patients with OA of the knee. Volunteers with coexistent inflammatory joint disease or serious comorbidities were excluded. Randomisation was to either a control group or the OAK group. The OAK group completed a 6-week self-management program. The control group had a 6-month waiting period before entering the OAK program. Assessments were taken at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcomes were the results measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Function subscales on the Short Form 36 version 1 questionnaire (SF-36) Secondary outcomes were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, Timed Up & Go Test (TUG), knee range of motion and quadriceps and hamstring strength-isometric contraction. Responses to treatment (responders) and minimal clinically important improvements (MCIIs) were determined. In the OAK group, VAS pain improved from baseline to week 8 from mean (SEM) 5.21 (0.30) to 3.65 (0.29) (P ≤ 0.001). During this period, improvements in the OAK group compared with the control group and responses to treatment were demonstrated according to the following outcomes: WOMAC Pain, Physical Function and Total dimensions, as well as SF-36 Physical Function, Role Physical, Body Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning domains. In addition, from baseline to week 8, the proportion of MCIIs was greater among the OAK group than the control group for all outcomes. For the period between baseline and month 6, WOMAC Pain, Physical Function and Total dimensions significantly improved in the OAK group compared to the control group, as did the SF-36 Physical Function, Role Physical, Body Pain, Vitality and Social Functioning domains, as well as hamstring strength in both legs. During the same period, the TUG Test, range of motion extension and left-knee flexion improved compared with the control group, although these improvements had little clinical relevance. We recorded statistically significant improvements compared with a control group with regard to pain, quality of life and function for participants in the OAK program on the basis of WOMAC and SF-36 measures taken 8 weeks and 6 months from baseline.
    Arthritis research & therapy 01/2012; 14(1):R21. DOI:10.1186/ar3703 · 3.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accounting for consumer preference in health policy and delivery system design makes good economic sense since this is linked to outcomes, quality of care and cost control. Probability trade-off methods are commonly used in policy evaluation, marketing and economics. Increasingly applied to health matters, the trade-off preference model has indicated that consumers of health care discriminate between different attributes of care. However, the complexities of the health decision-making environment raise questions about the inherent assumptions concerning choice and decision-making behavior which frame this view of consumer preference. In this article, we use the example of primary care in Australia as a vehicle to examine the concept of 'consumer preference' from different perspectives within economics and discuss the significance of how we model preferences for health policy makers. In doing so, we question whether mainstream thinking, namely that consumers are capable of deliberating between rival strategies and are willing to make trade-offs, is a reliable way of thinking about preferences given the complexities of the health decision-making environment. Alternative perspectives on preference can assist health policy makers and health providers by generating more precise information about the important attributes of care that are likely to enhance consumer engagement and optimise acceptability of health care.
    Health Policy 05/2010; 97(2-3):105-12. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.04.005 · 1.91 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the availability of practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis, inadequacies in practices of clinicians and patients have been found, leading to suboptimal outcomes. Literature has shown that simply disseminating management recommendations does not lead to adherence. Research suggests that barriers to use should be identified and addressed to improve adherence. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to use of conservative management recommendations for knee osteoarthritis by patients, general practitioners and physiotherapists. Following systematic reviews of evidence and guidelines, 12 key management recommendations were elaborated on four themes: medication, exercise, self-management and occupation. Focus groups were separately done with patients with knee osteoarthritis, general practitioners and physiotherapists to assess barriers to the use of recommendations. Patients and general practitioners appeared generally fatalistic with regards to knee osteoarthritis, with physiotherapists being more positive regarding long-term improvement of knee osteoarthritis. For medication, discrepancies were found between recommendations and views of clinicians. Both patients and general practitioners appeared ambivalent towards exercise and activity, recognizing its usefulness but identifying it at the same time as a cause of knee osteoarthritis. Patients and general practitioners appeared to consider weight loss particularly difficult. Barriers specific to each knee osteoarthritis management recommendation and stakeholder group were identified. Recommendations to address these barriers were elaborated. Results of this study can be used to develop implementation strategies to overcome identified barriers, with the goal of facilitating the use of guideline recommendations and improving outcomes.
    Joint, bone, spine: revue du rhumatisme 10/2010; 77(5):458-65. DOI:10.1016/j.jbspin.2010.08.001 · 2.90 Impact Factor
Show more