A Community-Based Physical Activity Counselling Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of the Track-OA Study.
A Community-Based Physical Activity Counselling Program for People With Knee Osteoarthritis: Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of the Track-OA Study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/mhealth.7863
复制
发表时间：
2017-06-26
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Feehan LM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li LC;Sayre EC;Xie H;Clayton C;Feehan LM
体育活动可以改善膝关节骨关节炎（OA）患者的健康状况；然而，这一人群参加体育活动的比例非常低。我们研究的目的是评估可穿戴设备（Fitbit Flex）和物理治疗师（PT）电话咨询的可行性和初步效果，以改善医生确诊的膝关节OA患者的身体活动，或通过2项早期OA的有效标准。我们进行了一项基于社区的可行性随机对照试验。直接组（n=17）接受了物理治疗师的简短教育课程，Fitbit Flex活动跟踪器，每周打电话给物理治疗师进行活动咨询。延迟组（n=17）在1个月后接受相同的干预。所有参与者在基线（T0）、1个月（T1）和2个月（T2）结束时进行评估。结果包括(1)平均中高强度体力活动时间，(2)平均久坐时间，(3)膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结局评分（oos），以及(4)健康伙伴量表。可行性数据用描述性统计进行汇总。在调整阻断和T0后，我们使用协方差分析来评估组类型对T1和T2结局测量的影响。我们评估了测量期间结果测量值变化的计划对比。我们确定了46个符合条件的个体；其中34人（74%）报名，没有人退学。除1名参与者外，其余参与者均遵守干预方案。我们发现了显著的效果，与延迟干预组相比，即时干预组在T0至T1的中度至剧烈体育活动时间和健康伙伴量表上都有所改善。即刻干预组在T0至T1与延迟干预组在T1至T2的计划对比显示，在久坐时间和oos症状分量表上，延迟干预组有显著影响，延迟干预组更有利。本研究证明了行为干预的可行性，并支持使用可穿戴设备，以促进膝关节OA患者的身体活动。ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02313506;https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02313506（由WebCite在http://www.webcitation.org/6r4P3Bub0存档）
Physical activity can improve health outcomes in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, participation in physical activity is very low in this population. The objective of our study was to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the use of wearables (Fitbit Flex) and telephone counselling by a physical therapist (PT) for improving physical activity in people with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of knee OA, or who have passed 2 validated criteria for early OA. We conducted a community-based feasibility randomized controlled trial. The immediate group (n=17) received a brief education session by a physical therapist, a Fitbit Flex activity tracker, and a weekly telephone call for activity counselling with the physical therapist. The delayed group (n=17) received the same intervention 1 month later. All participants were assessed at baseline (T0), and the end of 1 month (T1) and 2 months (T2). Outcomes were (1) mean moderate to vigorous physical activity time, (2) mean time spent on sedentary behavior, (3) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and (4) Partners in Health Scale. Feasibility data were summarized with descriptive statistics. We used analysis of covariance to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures at T1 and T2, after adjusting for blocking and T0. We assessed planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over measurement periods. We identified 46 eligible individuals; of those, 34 (74%) enrolled and no one dropped out. All but 1 participant adhered to the intervention protocol. We found a significant effect, with the immediate intervention group having improved in the moderate to vigorous physical activity time and in the Partners in Health Scale at T0 to T1 compared with the delayed intervention group. The planned contrast of the immediate intervention group at T0 to T1 versus the delayed group at T1 to T2 showed a significant effect in the sedentary time and the KOOS symptoms subscale, favoring the delayed group. This study demonstrated the feasibility of a behavioral intervention, supported by the use of a wearable device, to promote physical activity among people with knee OA. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02313506; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02313506 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6r4P3Bub0)