实施膝骨关节炎群体物理治疗:一项聚类随机临床试验。

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kelli D Allen, Sara Webb, Cynthia J Coffman, Livia Anderson, Graham Cummin, Connor Drake, Matthew Tucker, Amy Webster, Nina Sperber, Leah L Zullig, Jaime M Hughes, Lindsay A Ballengee, Lauren M Abbate, Helen Hoenig, Natalie Fullenkamp, Courtney H Van Houtven, Susan N Hastings
{"title":"实施膝骨关节炎群体物理治疗:一项聚类随机临床试验。","authors":"Kelli D Allen, Sara Webb, Cynthia J Coffman, Livia Anderson, Graham Cummin, Connor Drake, Matthew Tucker, Amy Webster, Nina Sperber, Leah L Zullig, Jaime M Hughes, Lindsay A Ballengee, Lauren M Abbate, Helen Hoenig, Natalie Fullenkamp, Courtney H Van Houtven, Susan N Hastings","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.35038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Group-based physical therapy (PT) for knee osteoarthritis is an effective, efficient strategy for delivering care, but little is known about optimal strategies for implementing new clinical programs like group PT.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare 2 implementation support approaches-foundational support and a combination of foundational support and more intensive enhanced support involving individual external facilitation-for delivering group PT.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 31, 2022, to March 18, 2024, in outpatient PT departments at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare sites that agreed to deliver group PT to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Sites were randomized to receive foundational or enhanced implementation support for delivering 6 sessions of group PT over 12 months that included exercise and educational content.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The foundational support approach included self-guided tools and monthly learning collaborative calls. The enhanced support approach added tailored support (eg, external facilitation) for sites that did not meet a priori benchmarks for adoption at 6 months or sustainment at 9 months.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Site-level implementation outcomes were measured during months 7 to 12 and included penetration (primary outcome, assessed as the mean number of patients enrolled per month) and fidelity (mean number of classes attended per patient, out of a maximum of 6). Generalized linear models were used to examine differences in implementation outcomes between the enhanced and foundational support arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen sites (10 enhanced support, 9 foundational support) enrolling across 3 cohorts delivered group PT to 144 patients (68 enhanced support, 76 foundational support) during months 7 to 12. Patients were predominantly male (130 [90.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 67 (9.2) years. Mean penetration estimates were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.2-1.7) patients enrolled per month for the enhanced support and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) for the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of -0.1 (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.0) patients enrolled (P = .92). Mean fidelity estimates were 5.0 (95% CI, 4.3-5.7) classes attended per patient in the enhanced support arm and 4.1 (95% CI, 3.2-4.9) in the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.0-1.9) classes per patient (P = .06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cluster randomized clinical trial, an enhanced implementation support approach for delivering group PT did not outperform foundational support. Penetration was modest, illustrating the challenge of fostering referrals.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05282927.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 10","pages":"e2535038"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of Group Physical Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kelli D Allen, Sara Webb, Cynthia J Coffman, Livia Anderson, Graham Cummin, Connor Drake, Matthew Tucker, Amy Webster, Nina Sperber, Leah L Zullig, Jaime M Hughes, Lindsay A Ballengee, Lauren M Abbate, Helen Hoenig, Natalie Fullenkamp, Courtney H Van Houtven, Susan N Hastings\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.35038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Group-based physical therapy (PT) for knee osteoarthritis is an effective, efficient strategy for delivering care, but little is known about optimal strategies for implementing new clinical programs like group PT.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare 2 implementation support approaches-foundational support and a combination of foundational support and more intensive enhanced support involving individual external facilitation-for delivering group PT.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 31, 2022, to March 18, 2024, in outpatient PT departments at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare sites that agreed to deliver group PT to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Sites were randomized to receive foundational or enhanced implementation support for delivering 6 sessions of group PT over 12 months that included exercise and educational content.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The foundational support approach included self-guided tools and monthly learning collaborative calls. The enhanced support approach added tailored support (eg, external facilitation) for sites that did not meet a priori benchmarks for adoption at 6 months or sustainment at 9 months.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Site-level implementation outcomes were measured during months 7 to 12 and included penetration (primary outcome, assessed as the mean number of patients enrolled per month) and fidelity (mean number of classes attended per patient, out of a maximum of 6). Generalized linear models were used to examine differences in implementation outcomes between the enhanced and foundational support arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen sites (10 enhanced support, 9 foundational support) enrolling across 3 cohorts delivered group PT to 144 patients (68 enhanced support, 76 foundational support) during months 7 to 12. Patients were predominantly male (130 [90.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 67 (9.2) years. Mean penetration estimates were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.2-1.7) patients enrolled per month for the enhanced support and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) for the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of -0.1 (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.0) patients enrolled (P = .92). Mean fidelity estimates were 5.0 (95% CI, 4.3-5.7) classes attended per patient in the enhanced support arm and 4.1 (95% CI, 3.2-4.9) in the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.0-1.9) classes per patient (P = .06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this cluster randomized clinical trial, an enhanced implementation support approach for delivering group PT did not outperform foundational support. Penetration was modest, illustrating the challenge of fostering referrals.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05282927.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 10\",\"pages\":\"e2535038\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492051/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.35038\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.35038","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:以团体为基础的膝骨关节炎物理治疗(PT)是一种有效、高效的治疗策略,但对于实施新的临床项目(如团体PT)的最佳策略知之甚少。目的:比较两种实施支持方法——基础支持和基础支持结合更强化的支持,包括个人外部促进——以提供团体PT。该集群随机临床试验于2022年1月31日至2024年3月18日在退伍军人事务部(VA)医疗保健站点的门诊PT部门进行,这些站点同意为症状性膝骨关节炎患者提供组PT。在12个月的时间里,随机分配6个小组PT课程,包括锻炼和教育内容,以获得基础或增强的实施支持。干预措施:基本的支持方法包括自我指导工具和每月的学习协作电话。增强支持方法为未达到6个月采用基准或9个月维持基准的站点增加了量身定制的支持(例如外部促进)。主要结局和措施:在第7至12个月期间测量了现场水平的实施结果,包括渗透率(主要结局,以每月入组患者的平均人数评估)和保真度(每位患者参加的平均课程数量,最多6个)。使用广义线性模型来检查增强和基础支持臂之间实施结果的差异。结果:纳入3个队列的19个站点(10个增强支持,9个基础支持)在第7至12个月期间为144名患者提供了PT组(68个增强支持,76个基础支持)。患者以男性为主(130例[90.3%]),平均(SD)年龄为67(9.2)岁。增强支持组每月入组患者平均入组1.0例(95% CI, 0.2-1.7),基础支持组每月入组患者平均入组1.0例(95% CI, 0.1-1.9),两组患者平均入组差异为-0.1例(95% CI, -1.1 - 1.0) (P = 0.92)。增强支持组的平均保真度估计为每位患者5.0级(95% CI, 4.3-5.7),基础支持组的平均保真度估计为4.1级(95% CI, 3.2-4.9),两组之间的估计平均差异为每位患者0.9级(95% CI, 0.0-1.9) (P = 0.06)。结论和相关性:在这个集群随机临床试验中,一种增强的实施支持方法并没有优于基础支持。普及率不高,说明了促进转诊的挑战。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT05282927。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementation of Group Physical Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Group-based physical therapy (PT) for knee osteoarthritis is an effective, efficient strategy for delivering care, but little is known about optimal strategies for implementing new clinical programs like group PT.

Objective: To compare 2 implementation support approaches-foundational support and a combination of foundational support and more intensive enhanced support involving individual external facilitation-for delivering group PT.

Design, setting, and participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 31, 2022, to March 18, 2024, in outpatient PT departments at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare sites that agreed to deliver group PT to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Sites were randomized to receive foundational or enhanced implementation support for delivering 6 sessions of group PT over 12 months that included exercise and educational content.

Interventions: The foundational support approach included self-guided tools and monthly learning collaborative calls. The enhanced support approach added tailored support (eg, external facilitation) for sites that did not meet a priori benchmarks for adoption at 6 months or sustainment at 9 months.

Main outcomes and measures: Site-level implementation outcomes were measured during months 7 to 12 and included penetration (primary outcome, assessed as the mean number of patients enrolled per month) and fidelity (mean number of classes attended per patient, out of a maximum of 6). Generalized linear models were used to examine differences in implementation outcomes between the enhanced and foundational support arms.

Results: Nineteen sites (10 enhanced support, 9 foundational support) enrolling across 3 cohorts delivered group PT to 144 patients (68 enhanced support, 76 foundational support) during months 7 to 12. Patients were predominantly male (130 [90.3%]), with a mean (SD) age of 67 (9.2) years. Mean penetration estimates were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.2-1.7) patients enrolled per month for the enhanced support and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.1-1.9) for the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of -0.1 (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.0) patients enrolled (P = .92). Mean fidelity estimates were 5.0 (95% CI, 4.3-5.7) classes attended per patient in the enhanced support arm and 4.1 (95% CI, 3.2-4.9) in the foundational support arm, with an estimated mean difference between arms of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.0-1.9) classes per patient (P = .06).

Conclusions and relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, an enhanced implementation support approach for delivering group PT did not outperform foundational support. Penetration was modest, illustrating the challenge of fostering referrals.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05282927.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信