Patients' and Practitioners' Views of Knee Osteoarthritis and Its Management: A Qualitative Interview Study

Interlis, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 05/2011; 6(5):e19634. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019634
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify the views of patients and care providers regarding the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to reveal potential obstacles to improving health care strategies.
We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews of a stratified sample of 81 patients (59 women) and 29 practitioners (8 women, 11 general practitioners [GPs], 6 rheumatologists, 4 orthopedic surgeons, and 8 [4 GPs] delivering alternative medicine).
Two main domains of patient views were identified: one about the patient-physician relationship and the other about treatments. Patients feel that their complaints are not taken seriously. They also feel that practitioners act as technicians, paying more attention to the knee than to the individual, and they consider that not enough time is spent on information and counseling. They have negative perceptions of drugs and a feeling of medical uncertainty about OA, which leads to less compliance with treatment and a switch to alternative medicine. Patients believe that knee OA is an inevitable illness associated with age, that not much can be done to modify its evolution, that treatments are of little help, and that practitioners have not much to propose. They express unrealistic fears about the impact of knee OA on daily and social life. Practitioners' views differ from those of patients. Physicians emphasize the difficulty in elaborating treatment strategies and the need for a tool to help in treatment choice.
This qualitative study suggests several ways to improve the patient-practitioner relationship and the efficacy of treatment strategies, by increasing their acceptability and compliance. Providing adapted and formalized information to patients, adopting more global assessment and therapeutic approaches, and dealing more accurately with patients' paradoxal representation of drug therapy are main factors of improvement that should be addressed.

Download full-text


Available from: François Rannou, Aug 11, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The expectations of patients for managing pain induced by exercise and mobilization (PIEM) have seldom been investigated. We identified the views of patients and care providers regarding pain management induced by exercise and mobilization during physical therapy programs. We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of 12 patients (7 women) and 14 care providers (6 women): 4 general practitioners [GPs], 1 rheumatologist, 1 physical medicine physician, 1 geriatrician, 2 orthopedic surgeons, and 5 physical therapists. Patients and care providers have differing views on PIEM in the overall management of the state of disease. Patients' descriptions of PIEM were polymorphic, and they experienced it as decreased health-related quality of life. The impact of PIEM was complex, and patient views were sometimes ambivalent, ranging from denial of symptoms to discontinuation of therapy. Care providers agreed that PIEM is generally not integrated in management strategies. Care providers more often emphasized the positive and less often the negative dimensions of PIEM than did patients. However, the consequences of PIEM cited included worsened patient clinical condition, fears about physical therapy, rejection of the physical therapist and refusal of care. PIEM follow-up is not optimal and is characterized by poor transmission of information. Patients expected education on how better to prevent stress and anxiety generated by pain, education on mobilization, and adaptations of physical therapy programs according to pain intensity. PIEM management could be optimized by alerting care providers to the situation, improving communication among care providers, and providing education to patients and care providers.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 07/2011; 12:172. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-12-172 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Musculoskeletal pain is common across all populations and costly in terms of impact on the individual and, more generally, on society. In most health-care systems, the first person to see the patient with a musculoskeletal problem such as back pain is the general practitioner, and access to other professionals such as physiotherapists, chiropractors, or osteopaths is still either largely controlled by a traditional medical model of referral or left to self-referral by the patient. In this paper, we examine the arguments for the general practitioner-led model and consider the arguments, and underpinning evidence, for reconsidering who should take responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal problems.
    Arthritis research & therapy 02/2012; 14(1):205. DOI:10.1186/ar3743 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To develop a questionnaire assessing the expectations of patients regarding management of osteoarthritis (OA of the knee.METHODS: A detailed document reporting on a qualitative analysis of interviews of patients with knee OA was sent to experts and a Delphi procedure was adopted for item generation. Eighty physicians (64 general practitioners, 16 rheumatologists) recruited 566 patients with knee OA to test the provisional questionnaire. Items were reduced according to their metric properties and exploratory factor analysis. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested by the Cronbach α coefficient. Construct validity was tested by divergent validity and confirmatory factor analysis. Test-retest reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman technique.RESULTS: Sixty items were extracted from analysis of the interview data. The experts needed three Delphi rounds to obtain consensus on a 33-item provisional questionnaire. The item reduction process resulted in an 18-item questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis extracted three main factors: factor 1 represented expectations for education, factor 2 expectations for information on technical and human support, and factor 3 expectations for physician empathy. The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92). Expected divergent validity was observed. Confirmation factor analyses confirmed higher intra-factor than inter-factor correlations. Test-retest reliability was good with an ICC of 0.79, and Bland-Altman analysis did not reveal a systematic trend.CONCLUSIONS: A new 18-item questionnaire assessing patient expectations of management of knee OA by their physicians is proposed. The questionnaire has good content and construct validity.
    Annals of the rheumatic diseases 05/2012; 72(4). DOI:10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-201206 · 10.38 Impact Factor
Show more