Home-based pre-surgical psychological intervention for knee osteoarthritis (HAPPiKNEES): a feasibility randomized controlled trial

Roshan das Nair, Jacqueline R Mhizha-Murira, Pippa Anderson, Hannah Carpenter, Simon Clarke, Sam Groves, Paul Leighton, Brigitte E Scammell, Gogem Topcu, David A Walsh, Nadina B Lincoln, Roshan das Nair, Jacqueline R Mhizha-Murira, Pippa Anderson, Hannah Carpenter, Simon Clarke, Sam Groves, Paul Leighton, Brigitte E Scammell, Gogem Topcu, David A Walsh, Nadina B Lincoln

Abstract

Objective: To determine the feasibility of conducting a trial of a pre-surgical psychological intervention on pain, function, and mood in people with knee osteoarthritis listed for total knee arthroplasty.

Design: Multi-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomized controlled trial of intervention plus usual care versus usual care.

Setting: Participants' homes or hospital.

Participants: Patients with knee osteoarthritis listed for total knee arthroplasty and score >7 on either subscales of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

Intervention: Up-to 10 sessions of psychological intervention (based on cognitive behavioural therapy).

Main measures: Feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of trial procedures and intervention, completion of outcome measures), and standardized questionnaires assessing pain, function, and mood at baseline, and four and six months post-randomisation.

Results: Of 222 people screened, 81 did not meet inclusion criteria, 64 did not wish to participate, 26 were excluded for other reasons, and 51 were randomized. A total of 30 completed 4-month outcomes and 25 completed 6-month outcomes. Modal number of intervention sessions completed was three (range 2-8). At 6-month follow-up, mood, pain, and physical function scores were consistent with clinically important benefits from intervention, with effect sizes ranging from small ( d = 0.005) to moderate ( d = 0.74), and significant differences in physical function between intervention and usual care groups ( d = 1.16). Feedback interviews suggested that participants understood the rationale for the study, found the information provided adequate, the measures comprehensive, and the intervention acceptable.

Conclusion: A definitive trial is feasible, with a total sample size of 444 people. Pain is a suitable primary outcome, but best assessed 6 and 12 months post-surgery.

Keywords: Psychological intervention; feasibility; knee osteoarthritis; randomized controlled trial; total knee arthroplasty.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram. *Included in error, due to miscalculated screening score.

References

    1. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 7th annual report, 2010,
    1. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 12th annual report, 2015, (accessed 20 November 2016).
    1. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 14th annual report, 2017, (accessed 1 December 2017).
    1. Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, et al. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B(1): 115–121.
    1. Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge A, et al. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK clinical practice research datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23(4): 594–600.
    1. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, et al. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86(10): 2179–2186.
    1. Brander VA, Stulberg SD, Adams AD, et al. Predicting total knee replacement pain: a prospective, observational study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 416: 27–36.
    1. Lingard EA, Riddle DL. Impact of psychological distress on pain and function following knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(6): 1161–1169.
    1. Rosenberger PH, Kerns R, Jokl P, et al. Mood and attitude predict pain outcomes following arthroscopic knee surgery. Ann Behav Med 2009; 37(1): 70–76.
    1. Faller H, Kirschner S, Konig A. Psychological distress predicts functional outcomes at three and twelve months after total knee arthroplasty. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2003; 25(5): 372–373.
    1. Mancuso CA, Graziano S, Briskie LM, et al. Randomized trials to modify patients’ preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466(2): 424–431.
    1. Prouty A, Cooper M, Thomas P, et al. Multidisciplinary patient education for total joint replacement surgery patients. Orthop Nurs 2006; 25(4): 257–261.
    1. Suva D, Lubbeke A, Hudelson P, et al. Patient information before hip replacement: positive effects of group-session patient education prior to total hip replacement. Rev Med Suisse 2007; 3(138): 2878–2881.
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Common Mental Health Disorders: The NICE guideline on identification and pathways to care. Leicester/London, The British Psychological Society & The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011, (accessed 17 January 2018)
    1. Lack D, Ries M, Sack K, et al. Psychological aspects of total joint arthroplasty. Indep Pract 2010; 30(2): 63–66.
    1. Yohannes AM, Caton S. Management of depression in older people with osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Aging Ment Health 2010; 14(6): 637–651.
    1. Das Nair R, Anderson P, Clarke S, et al. Home-administered pre-surgical psychological intervention for knee osteoarthritis (HAPPiKNEES): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17: 54.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67(6): 361–370.
    1. Zhang W, Doherty M, Peat G, et al. EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010; 69(3): 483–489.
    1. Axford J, Butt A, Heron C, et al. Prevalence of anxiety and depression in osteoarthritis: use of the hospital anxiety and depression scale as a screening tool. Clin Rheumatol 2010; 29(11): 1277–1283.
    1. Bellamy N. WOMAC® User Guide IX. Brisbane, Australia: 2009:1–76.
    1. Hawker G. Measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain: ICOAP – user’s guide, 2010, (accessed 20 September 2012).
    1. Beck A, Steer R, Brown GK. Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 1996.
    1. Beck A, Steer R. Beck anxiety inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 1993.
    1. EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20(10): 1727–1736.
    1. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005; 4(4): 287–291.
    1. Gatchel RJ, Peng YB, Peters ML, et al. The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions. Psychol Bull 2007; 133(4): 581–624.
    1. Morley S. Efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic pain: progress and some challenges. Pain 2011; 152(Suppl. 3): S99–S106.
    1. Gloucester Pain Management Team. Training manual. Gloucester: Gloucester Royal Infirmary, 1998.
    1. Palinkas LA, Horwitz S, Green CA, et al. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42(5): 533–544.
    1. Moreton BJ, Wheeler M, Walsh DA, et al. Rasch analysis of the intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) scale. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20(10–3): 1109–1115.
    1. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE, 2003.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman AM, Miles MB. (eds) Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge, 1993, pp.173–194.
    1. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in healthcare: analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320: 114–116.
    1. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care 2015. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2015.
    1. Behrendt C, Gölz T, Roesler C, et al. What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients’ understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials. J Med Ethics 2011; 37(2): 74–80.
    1. Mark J, Spiro H. Informed consent for colonoscopy: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150(4): 777–780.
    1. Schenker Y, Fernandez A, Sudore R, et al. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2011; 31(1): 151–173.
    1. Goldberg D, Williams P. A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson, 1988.
    1. Popp L, Schneider S. Attention placebo control in randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions: theory and practice. Trials 2015; 16: 150.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe