Objective To elicit perspectives of family physicians and patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) on KOA, its treatment/management and the use of a mobile health application (app) to help patients self-manage their KOA.Design A qualitative study using Cognitive Task Analysis for physician interviews and peer-to-peer semistructured interviews for patients according to the Patient and Community Engagement Research (PaCER) method.Setting Primary care practices and patient researchers at an academic centre in Southern Alberta.Participants Intentional sampling of family physicians (n=4; 75% women) and patients with KOA who had taken part in previous PaCER studies and had experienced knee pain on most days of the month at any time in the past (n=5; 60% women).Results Physician and patient views about KOA were starkly contrasting. Patient participants expressed that KOA seriously impacted their lives and lifestyles, and they wanted their knee pain to be considered as important as other health problems. In contrast, physicians uniformly conceptualised KOA as a relatively minor health problem, although they still recognised it as a painful condition that often limits patients’ activities. Consequently, physicians did not regard KOA as a condition to be proactively and aggressively managed. The gap between physicians’ and patients’ conceptualisation of KOA and its treatment extended to the use of an app for self-management. While patients were supportive of the app, physicians were sceptical of its use and focused more on accountability and patient resources.Conclusions The clear discord between physicians’ mental models and patients’ lived experience and perceived needs around KOA emphasised a gap in understanding and communication about treatment and management of KOA. As such, this preliminary and formative research will inform a codesign approach to develop an app that will act as a communications tool between patients and physicians, enabling patient–physician discussions regarding modifiable self-management options based on a patient’s perspectives and needs.

To examine the responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L among total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR) patients.|The EQ-5D (3L or 5L) and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) have been routinely administered to all THR/TKR patients before and at 3 months after surgery in Alberta, Canada, since 2010. Patients were included in this analysis if they completed the WOMAC and the same version of EQ-5D at baseline and 3-month follow-up. The WOMAC was used as an anchor to categorize patients into 9 subgroups according to the relative change from baseline, i.e., no change, and 4 categories each for the amount of deterioration or improvement: large (≥ 70%), moderate (50% ≤ change < 70%), small but important (20% ≤ change < 50%), and very mild (0 < change ≤ 20%). The responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L for each subgroup was assessed using effect size, standardized response mean, and Guyatt's Responsiveness Index.|A total of 1594 patients completed the EQ-5D-3L and WOMAC (60% females, mean age 66 years, N = 646 [41%] THR), and 3180 completed the EQ-5D-5L and WOMAC (60% females, mean age 66 years, N = 1352 [43.2%] THR) at baseline and 3-month follow-up. For both THR and TKR patients with "small but important" improvement, the EQ-5D-5L was consistently more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L.|Our study demonstrated that the EQ-5D-5L is more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L in identifying health-related quality of life changes in THR/TKR patients. We recommend using the EQ-5D-5L in longitudinal studies in this patient population.

Background As a generic measure of health-related quality of life among patients awaiting THA or TKA, the three-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L), which has three response levels of severity (no problems, some problems, and extreme problems/unable) to five questions, is widely used. Previous studies indicated that the ceiling effect of the EQ-5D-3L limits its application. The five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) was developed to enhance the measurement properties of the tool by adding two levels: slight problems and severe problems. However, only a few small studies have compared the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in patients awaiting THA and TKA. Questions/purposes The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L among patients awaiting THA or TKA in terms of (1) response patterns, (2) convergent construct validity, (3) known-group validity, and (4) informativity and discriminatory power. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Data Repository, which recorded information on all patients receiving hip or knee arthroplasties between April 2010 and March 2017 in Alberta, Canada (n = 37,377). Patients receiving THA or TKA and who completed the EQ-5D and WOMAC at baseline (presurgery) were included in this study (n = 24,766). The EQ-5D-3L was administered to all patients in 2010, and was gradually replaced by the EQ-5D-5L between 2013 and 2016; the EQ-5D-5L reached full application in all clinics by 2017. A propensity score was used to match patients 1:1 who completed either the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L before surgery. Response patterns have been explored using ceiling and floor effects and distribution across severity levels of each dimension. Convergent construct validity was examined using Spearman’s correlation (rho) against the WOMAC. Known-group validity was examined by gender, preoperative risk factors, mental health, obesity, and WOMAC physical function score. Informativity and discriminatory power were examined using the Shannon (H’) and Shannon evenness (J’) indices. A total of 3446 pairs of patients awaiting THA (55% women; mean age, 66 years) and 5428 pairs of patients awaiting TKA (59% women; mean age 67 years) were included in this analysis; the study group included all patients who were kept in the propensity score matching. Results Ceiling and floor effects were comparable and small (less than 0.5%) for both versions; the responses across severity levels for each dimension were more evenly distributed for the EQ-5D-5L. Convergent construct validity was stronger for the EQ-5D-5L as it consistently had stronger correlations with the WOMAC overall and domain scores than the EQ-5D-3L (rho(3L-THA), -0.77 to -0.31; rho(3L-TKA), -0.71 to -0.24; rho(5L-THA), -0.71 to -0.17; rho(5L-TKA), -0.64 to -0.17; all p values < 0.001). The hypotheses of known-group analyses were confirmed for both versions. The EQ-5D-5L demonstrated stronger informativity and discriminatory power than the EQ-5D-3L, particularly for the mobility dimension (THA, H'(5L/3L)=1.66/0.37, J'(5L/3L)=0.72/0.23; TKA, H'(5L/3L)=1.66/0.41, J'(5L/3L)=0.71/0.26). Conclusions This study demonstrates the superior construct validity, and informativity and discriminatory power of the EQ-5D-5L compared with the EQ-5D-3L among patients awaiting THA or TKA. Clinical Relevance Compared with the three-level version, the five-level version of the EQ-5D differentiates between patients awaiting THA and TKA much better based on their mobility, which is a key health aspect or outcome in these patients. Our findings suggest that the EQ-5D-5L is more appropriate for this population. J. A. Johnson, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 2-040 Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E1, Canada, Email: jeff.johnson@ualberta.ca The institution of one or more of the authors (JAJ) has received, during the study period, funding from the EuroQol Research Foundation. One of the authors certifies that he (JAJ) is a member of the Board of Directors of the EuroQol Research Foundation, which holds the copyright for the EQ-5D instruments. One of the authors certifies that she (DAM), or a member of her immediate family, has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, personal consulting fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from Optum Insight (Eden Prairie, MN, USA), personal consulting fees in an amount less than USD 10,000 from the Research Triangle Institute (Research Triangle Park, NC, USA); personal consulting fees in an amount less than USD 10,000, from Abbvie (North Chicago, IL, USA) all outside the submitted work. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Each author certifies that his or her institution waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research. This work was performed at the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and the School of Public Health, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Received August 21, 2018 Accepted January 09, 2019 © 2019 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins LWW

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an online patient decision aid with individualised potential outcomes of surgery, on the quality of decisions for knee replacement surgery in routine clinical care. Design A pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) in patients considering total knee replacement at a high-volume orthopedic clinic. Patients were randomized at their routine online pre-surgical assessment to either complete a decision aid or not. At their consultation, those in the intervention arm had a surgeon report summarizing the decision aid results. The primary outcome was decision quality, defined as being knowledgeable and choosing the option that matched informed treatment preferences. Multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis was conducted to consider surgeon level clustering and baseline differences between study arms. Results Of 163 patients randomized, 155 completed post-surgical surveys and were included in the analysis. The average patient was aged 65 years, obese and had moderate to severe osteoarthritis symptoms at baseline. Patients in the intervention arm had a higher odds of making a quality decision (Odds Ratio ​= ​2.08, 95% CI: 1.08 to 4.02), predominantly through increased knowledge. Conclusions This study supports the benefit of a decision aid in combination with a surgeon report to significantly improve decision quality in routine care. While the independent contribution of tailoring the decision aid to patient baseline characteristics and including a surgeon report remains unclear, we demonstrated the feasibility of integrating the decision aid into an online pre-surgical assessment in routine clinical care.