Evaluation of a digital platform for osteoarthritis treatment: study protocol for a randomised clinical study

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of a digital platform for osteoarthritis treatment

T2 - study protocol for a randomised clinical study

AU - Nero, Håkan

AU - Ranstam, Jonas

AU - Kiadaliri, Aliasghar Ahmad

AU - Dahlberg, Leif E

N1 - © 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.

PY - 2018/11/8

Y1 - 2018/11/8

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Despite favourable results from structured face-to-face treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in Sweden through the Better management of patients with OsteoArthritis (BOA) initiative, only around 20% of people with knee or hip OA receive the primary treatment recommended by international guidelines (ie, information, exercise, weight management). In 2014, a digital treatment programme named Joint Academy was introduced in Sweden, based on the same concept as the face-to-face BOA programme. In line with BOA, Joint Academy follows national and international guidelines and best practice for OA treatment. Results from observational studies suggest that this digital treatment is a valuable alternative to the traditional treatment approach and can positively impact patients' function and pain. However, conclusions from such studies commonly suggest that more rigorous testing is necessary to ascertain the benefits of digital treatment delivery for people with OA.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised clinical trial will be performed, comparing regular face-to-face care according to BOA with the digital version, Joint Academy. A total of 270 participants with clinically diagnosed knee OA will be recruited at primary care centres and randomised to either standard treatment (BOA) for 3 months, or the experimental group (digital intervention programme). Both groups will receive educational sessions and exercises yet with a difference in programme deliverance. The objective of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the online treatment programme, in comparison with BOA. The two treatment groups will be compared with respect to the number of repetitions of the 30 s chair stand test at 3, 6 and 12 months, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis of variance.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been attained from the Regional Board of Ethics in Lund, Sweden (Dnr 2017/719). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03328741.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Despite favourable results from structured face-to-face treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in Sweden through the Better management of patients with OsteoArthritis (BOA) initiative, only around 20% of people with knee or hip OA receive the primary treatment recommended by international guidelines (ie, information, exercise, weight management). In 2014, a digital treatment programme named Joint Academy was introduced in Sweden, based on the same concept as the face-to-face BOA programme. In line with BOA, Joint Academy follows national and international guidelines and best practice for OA treatment. Results from observational studies suggest that this digital treatment is a valuable alternative to the traditional treatment approach and can positively impact patients' function and pain. However, conclusions from such studies commonly suggest that more rigorous testing is necessary to ascertain the benefits of digital treatment delivery for people with OA.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised clinical trial will be performed, comparing regular face-to-face care according to BOA with the digital version, Joint Academy. A total of 270 participants with clinically diagnosed knee OA will be recruited at primary care centres and randomised to either standard treatment (BOA) for 3 months, or the experimental group (digital intervention programme). Both groups will receive educational sessions and exercises yet with a difference in programme deliverance. The objective of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the online treatment programme, in comparison with BOA. The two treatment groups will be compared with respect to the number of repetitions of the 30 s chair stand test at 3, 6 and 12 months, using a mixed model repeated measures analysis of variance.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been attained from the Regional Board of Ethics in Lund, Sweden (Dnr 2017/719). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03328741.

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022925

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022925

M3 - Article

C2 - 30413507

VL - 8

SP - e022925

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 11

ER -