LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Thomas, Kim Suzanne
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects:
Objectives: o To determine the prevalence of knee pain in the population aged ≥45 years. o To determine the benefit or otherwise of regular home exercise and telephone contact in reducing the burden of knee pain in the community. o To determine the economic burden of knee pain from a societal perspective. o To determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the compared interventions. Design: An initial postal questionnaire regarding knee pain was sent to 9296 individuals aged ≥45 years registered with two large general practices in Nottingham. This was followed by a two-year, single-blind, randomised factorial trial. Treatment arms included: exercise therapy, telephone social support, a placebo health food product and no intervention. Economic data were collected prospectively alongside the trial. Analysis was conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. Primary outcome: Self-reported knee pain at 24 months. This was assessed using the Western Ontario MacMaster's Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - a knee specific questionnaire. Results: The postal questionnaire was returned by 65% of the study population. The prevalence of self-reported knee pain in the community in those aged ≥45 years was 32% (35% in females and 28% in males). Costs incurred during the 6-month period prior to randomisation showed medical costs for the treatment of knee pain to be 7% of total medical costs and 11% of primary care costs. Annual societal costs were estimated to be £48 per person. The intervention study demonstrated that a simple, home-exercise programme could reduce self-reported knee pain, knee stiffness and knee related physical disability after 24 months (p=<0.001, 0.01 and <0.001 respectively). Effect sizes were modest, but improvements were incremental to normal care. The number needed to treat (NNT) in order to achieve a ≥ 50% reduction in pain at 24 months for individuals allocated to the exercise programme was between 8 and 13. Neither telephone contact nor the placebo dolomite tablet contributed significantly to the observed reduction in pain. The cost per person of delivering the two-year exercise programme was £ 113. Analysis of GP records revealed no change in medical costs during the trial. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested hat the cost per unit change on the WOMAC pain scale was £ 108. The cost-effectiveness of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in pain in a single individual (based on NNT figures) was £1,012. Conclusion: Knee pain is common in the general UK population aged ≥45 years and incurs an estimated cost of £218 to £350 million per annum (excluding indirect costs) in 1996 prices. The burden of knee pain could be reduced by the implementation of a cost-effective primary care-based exercise programme, although such improvements are likely to be modest.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • ApPENDIX 1: CONSENT FORMS ............................................................................................ 270 ApPENDIX 2: RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................................... 271 ApPENDIX 3: ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................ 272 ApPENDIX -i: INFORMATION LEAFLET AND GENERAL ADVICE .............................................. 273 ApPENDIX 5: SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................... ~74 ApPENDIX 6: EXERCISE DIARy ............................................................................................. 275 :-\PPENDIX 7: STRENGTH OF EXERCISE BANDS UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS ............... 276
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article