Background/Purpose: Generalized osteoarthritis (GOA) is a widely accepted and prevalent OA phenotype characterized by the involvement of multiple joints. However, current research and clinical practice mostly examine OA populations for a specific OA localization. The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for GOA is therefore largely unknown. In addition, there is no evidence concerning the optimal mode of care delivery. Therefore, we compared the effectiveness of a non-pharmacological multidisciplinary face-to-face group-based treatment program versus a telephone-delivered treatment program on daily function for patients with GOA, until one year after treatment.

Methods: In this single blind randomized clinical superiority trial, individuals clinically diagnosed with GOA were randomly allocated to either a six week multidisciplinary face-to-face group-based treatment program or a six week telephone-delivered treatment program. Both programs aimed to improve daily function and to enhance self-efficacy to control the disease. The programs had comparable content but critically differed in mode of delivery and intensity. Primary (daily functioning; HAQ-DI) and secondary outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 6, 26 and 52 weeks. The 6-week time point was used to assess the short-term effects of both interventions. The average score obtained from the 6, 26 and 52 time points was used to assess the long-term effects. Directly after finishing the treatment patient satisfaction was measured. Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing values. Differences in effectiveness between both treatment programs were analysed using linear regressions adjusted for baseline, sex and age.

Results: Of 158 randomized patients (mean (SD) age 60 (8); female 85%), 147 (93%) completed at least the baseline measurement and were included in the intention to treat analysis. Of these patients, 75 were allocated to the face-to-face treatment program and 72 to the telephone-delivered treatment program. No difference in effectiveness between both treatment groups was found on the HAQ-DI at both the short (p = 0.59) and long-term (p = 0.65). Moreover, no differences in effectiveness between the two modes of care delivery on the secondary outcomes were found (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the face-to-face treatment program than in the telephone-delivered treatment program.

Conclusion: In this trial we found no differences in effectiveness between two modes of delivery of non-pharmacological care for patients with GOA. Therefore, our results imply that the choice of mode of treatment delivery i.e. face-to-face versus telephone-delivered could be based on patients’ preferences and/or costs.

---

« Back to ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting 2014

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/randomised-comparison-of-the-effectiveness-of-a-non-pharmacological-multidisciplinary-face-to-face-group-based-treatment-program-vs-a-telephone-delivered-treatment-program-on-daily-function-in-patien/