Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25422042›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Quality of hip and knee osteoarthritis management in primary health care in a Norwegian county: a cross-sectional survey.

Gudmund Grønhaug, Nina Østerås, Kåre Birger Hagen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gudmund GrønhaugNational Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, P.O. Box 23 Vinderen, 0319, Oslo, Norway. groenhaug@gmail.com.
Nina ØsteråsNational Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, P.O. Box 23 Vinderen, 0319, Oslo, Norway. nina.osteras@medisin.uio.no.
Kåre Birger HagenNational Resource Centre for Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, P.O. Box 23 Vinderen, 0319, Oslo, Norway. k.b.hagen@medisin.uio.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of pain and disability in the adult population. Several studies have documented discordance between general practioners (GP) practice and management recommendations, but there is limited published information about patient reported experience of quality of care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the patient perceived quality of OA management in primary health care. Secondly, we wanted to explore the factors associated with the perceived quality of OA care.

methodsA cross-sectional survey in six general practices in the county of Nord-Trøndelag in Norway, patients with radiologically diagnosed OA, according to ICPC codes L89, L90 or L91 or clinical signs and symptoms corresponding to OA in the hip or knee and patient-reported quality of OA care on the 17-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (OA-QI). OA-QI summary pass rates were calculated, in which the numerator represents the number with indicators passed and the denominator represents the total number of eligible persons. Associations with summary pass rates were explored with demographic, disease related and health care related factors as independent variables.

resultsA total of 119 patients were included (response rate 42%). The median summary QI pass rate for all 17 QIs was 47% (Inter Quartile Range 33-65%), but there were large variation between the different items. The referral for weight reduction had the lowest pass rate (8%), whereas the highest pass rate was having received information about the importance of physical activity and exercise (84%). The median summary QI pass rates for both non-pharmacological- (QIs 1-11) and pharmacological (QIs 13-16) treatments were 50% (IQR 25-75). In bivariate regression analyses, only overall treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with QI pass rate (p = 0.001), with unstandardized beta = 6.1 (95% CI 2.7 to 9.5), i.e. a one-point increase on the five-point satisfaction scale was associated with a 6% increase in pass rate.

conclusionConsidering that the median summary QI pass rate was 47%, there might be room for improvement in OA care. Advice and the referral of OA patients in need of weight reduction seem to have the greatest potential for improvement.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ManagementExerciseFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayOsteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneeReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25422042
PMCPMC4252009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.