Search

BackgroundJoint pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) is highly prevalent and can be extremely debilitating. Programs to support self-management of joint pain can be effective; however, most programs are designed to build self-efficacy and rarely engage social networks. Digital interventions are considered acceptable by people with joint pain. However, many existing resources are not accessible for or developed alongside people with lower health literacy, which disproportionately affects people with OA. ObjectiveThis study aims to design and develop an accessible digital self-management tool for people with joint pain and integrate this with an existing social network activation tool (Generating Engagement in Network Involvement [GENIE]) and to explore the feasibility of these linked tools for supporting the management of joint pain. MethodsThe study was conducted in 2 phases: a design and development stage and a small-scale evaluation. The first phase followed the person-based approach to establish guiding principles for the development of a new site (Managing joint Pain On the Web and through Resources [EMPOWER]) and its integration with GENIE. People with joint pain were recruited from libraries, a community café, and an exercise scheme to take part in 3 focus groups. EMPOWER was tested and refined using think-aloud interviews (n=6). In the second phase, participants were recruited through the web via libraries to participate in a small-scale evaluation using the LifeGuide platform to record use over a 1-month period. Participants (n=6) were asked to complete evaluation questionnaires on their experiences. The NASSS (nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability) framework was used to explore the feasibility of the sites. ResultsThe focus groups established guiding principles for the development of the tool. These included ensuring accessibility and relevance for people with OA-related joint pain and recognizing that joint pain is the reason for seeking support, trust, social facilitation, and goal setting. Think-aloud interviews identified issues with user experience and site navigation and the need for professional input for referral and goal setting, confusion, and tensions over the role of GENIE and site connectivity. Participants expected the sites to be specific to their pain-related needs. EMPOWER was accessed 18 times; 6 users registered with the site during the evaluation study. Participants mostly explored information pages on being active and being a healthy weight. Only one participant undertook goal setting and 4 participants visited the GENIE website. ConclusionsUsing the NASSS framework, we identified the complexity associated with integrating EMPOWER and GENIE. The value proposition domain highlighted the technical and conceptual complexity associated with integrating approaches. Although identified as theoretically achievable, the integration of differing propositions may have caused cognitive and practical burdens for users. Nevertheless, we believe that both approaches have a distinct role in the self-management of joint pain.

In this snapshot, I discuss the potential value of gardening as a reciprocal research method. I draw on my experience of partnering with a school in establishing and supporting an ongoing primary school vegetable garden, as part of a long-term research project. I suggest that the garden creates a space in which to "talk around" the problem of diet-related non-communicable disease, rather than trying to define or address it directly, and therefore allows for the co-construction of our understanding of "food choice," both in exploring the limitations of choice, and in discovering participatory opportunities to leverage for change in the food system. In this light, I discuss the value of slow research around a shared physical space, where reciprocity is derived from a negotiated give-and-take of learning to grow vegetables. Over time, locally relevant, relational and cumulative framing emerges. I argue that slow, reciprocal research involves embracing the full complexity of context, and adopting a posture of flexibility means that, rather than trying to control outcomes, we remain curious about the process itself.

Introduction: Public and health professional involvement (PHPI) is essential in healthcare research yet uncommonly integrated into systematic reviews. We incorporated and evaluated PHPI in a mixed methods review of occupational therapy for self-management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Public partners were living with or caring for someone with RA. Our steering group comprised two public, two professionals (one occupational therapist, one rheumatologist), and one reviewer who planned the review's PHPI (August 2021). Involvement was evaluated from public and health professional (PHP) perspectives using a survey and workshops (August–October 2022) exploring reasons for involvement, challenges and learning opportunities. Results: Alongside the steering group, 16 public and 6 professionals were involved throughout the review. Five public refined the search strategy, with three assisting in subsequent review activities. PHPs helped interpret findings during three public (n = 12) and one professional workshop (n = 4). Three occupational therapists and one public co-authored (ED) publications. In evaluation, PHPs felt valued and that their involvement was well-integrated. The researchers underestimated the time required for communicating and conducting PHPI in the review. Conclusions: PHPI is worthwhile, feasible and can be integrated within a systematic review. PHP partners considered participation valuable; researchers must prioritise time to prepare and communicate PHPI activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the impact of occupational therapy (OT) on the self‐management of function, pain, fatigue, and lived experience for people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Five databases and gray literature were searched up to June 30, 2022. Three reviewers screened titles and abstracts, with two independently extracting and assessing full texts using the Cochrane risk of bias (quantitative) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) tools to assess study quality. Studies were categorized into four intervention types. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) (quantitative) and GRADE‐ Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (qualitative) were used to assess the quality of evidence for each intervention type. Results: Of 39 eligible papers, 29 were quantitative (n = 2,029), 4 qualitative (n = 50), and 6 mixed methods (n = 896). Good evidence supports patient education and behavior change programs for improving pain and function, particularly group sessions of joint protection education, but these do not translate to long‐term improvements for RA (>24 months). Comprehensive OT had mixed evidence (limited to home OT and an arthritis gloves program), whereas limited evidence was available for qualitative insights, splints and assistive devices, and self‐management for fatigue. Conclusion: Although patient education is promising for self‐managing RA, no strong evidence was found to support OT programs for self‐managing fatigue or patient experience and long‐term effectiveness. More research is required on lived experience, and the long‐term efficacy of self‐management approaches incorporating OT, particularly timing programs to meet the individual's conditional needs (i.e., early or established RA) to build on the few studies to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Arthritis gloves are prescribed in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to reduce hand pain, stiffness, and improve hand function. As part of a randomised controlled trial, this study investigated participants' perceptions of wearing arthritis gloves. Method: Participants with RA and persistent hand pain (n = 206) were randomly assigned and prescribed either loose‐fitting gloves (control) or arthritis gloves (intervention), for day and/or night wear (as per individual need). At 12‐weeks, the trial follow‐up questionnaire also included items about whether the gloves prescribed were: beneficial or not; if yes, the benefits experienced; any problems encountered; if they stopped wearing gloves day and/or night, and why. Results: The questionnaire response rate was 154/206 (75%). In both groups, 73% reported gloves were beneficial (p = 0.97). There were no differences in types of benefits reported. The most common were: warmth (59% control: 54% intervention; p = 0.53); and comfort (54%: 62%; p = 0.29). Fewer reported problems with glove wear in the control group (33%), compared to the intervention group (49%); p = 0.05. In both groups, the most common daytime problem was inability to wear gloves for wet or dirty activities; and at night, gloves being too hot. Similar numbers in the control and intervention groups stopped wearing gloves either day or night (23%: 31%; p = 0.26), primarily for these reasons. Discussion: Participants' perceptions about wearing arthritis or loose‐fitting gloves were very similar. Wearing ordinary gloves could result in similar perceived benefits to arthritis gloves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]