Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41914893›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Co-Designing the Early Pain Intervention After Knee Replacement (EPIK) Model of Care for People With Persistent Pain After Knee Replacement.

Navneet Chadha, Joshua R Zadro, Sam Adie, Maria Tchan, Ian A Harris, Ilana N Ackerman, Deanne E Jenkin, Blake F Dear, Christopher G Maher, Rachelle Buchbinder and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Navneet ChadhaInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-0171-5542
Joshua R ZadroInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sam AdieFaculty of Medicine & Health, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0780-4338
Maria TchanThe Centre for Impact & Change, Balmain, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian A HarrisInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-7627
Ilana N AckermanMusculoskeletal Health Unit and Wiser Health Care Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Deanne E JenkinFaculty of Medicine & Health, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Blake F DearSchool of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9324-3092
Christopher G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rachelle BuchbinderMusculoskeletal Health Unit and Wiser Health Care Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Laurent BillotThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian D CameronJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tracey GregsonSt. George and Sutherland Centre for Clinical Orthopaedic Research, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Brenda LuckSt. George and Sutherland Centre for Clinical Orthopaedic Research, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Giovanni E FerreiraInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
EPIK Study Group

Funding

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP2032516The Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation 2023TCG0048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately one in five Australians who undergo total knee replacement (TKR) experience persistent postoperative pain. There are currently no known effective and cost-effective multidisciplinary models of care in Australia to address this. We are developing the 'Early Pain Intervention after Knee Replacement' (EPIK) model of care, adapted from 'Support and Treatment After Replacement' (STAR) care pathway. STAR was developed in the United Kingdom (UK) and shown to be effective and cost-effective in the UK context. Extensive consumer and clinician engagement informed the development of the EPIK model of care, tailored to the Australian health system and geographical context to address this critical gap.

objectiveTo co-design the 'Early Pain Intervention after Knee replacement' (EPIK) model of care for people with persistent pain after TKR.

methodsWe used Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) methodology to co-design EPIK, a telehealth model of care providing remote care coordination for people with persistent pain after TKR. Three online Zoom workshops were conducted with key stakeholders, including consumers with lived experience, clinicians (orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists, general practitioners, psychologists and a rehabilitation physician), and EPIK investigators. Workshop 1 explored consumer perspectives on the EPIK model of care assessment and follow-up. Workshop 2 determined the feasibility and roles of clinicians in the EPIK model of care delivery. Workshop 3 brought together consumers, clinicians, and researchers to refine and finalise the EPIK model of care. Using EBCD methodology and inductive framework analysis, themes were derived iteratively. Across consumer and clinician workshops, consensus was reached through facilitated discussions where stakeholders actively contributed to prioritisation activities and iterative refinement of model components.

resultsTwenty-one individuals participated in the workshops, comprising nine consumers and 12 clinicians from the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania, and Western Australia, alongside five EPIK Investigators. Workshop 1 with consumers highlighted the need for clearer definition of communication processes, patient education and coaching strategies, and the role of the EPIK care coordinator to ensure consistent information and coordinated support throughout the model of care delivery. Workshop 2 with clinicians focused on telehealth assessments, escalation of clinical pathways, referrals, and psychological support. The final workshop reached consensus on its components and delivery, emphasising the importance of patient advocacy, reassurance and continuity of personalised care.

conclusionThrough meaningful end-user involvement, co-design informed the development of the EPIK model of care. The effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of EPIK will be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two consumer co-authors (T.G. and B.L.) guided the development of the preliminary model of care and trial protocol. Consumers with lived experience of persistent pain after TKR participated throughout the co-design process.

trial registrationACTRN12625001029482p (Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry). Registered on 17 September 2025.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneePain ManagementPostoperative PainAustraliaHumansTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41914893
PMCPMC13125727

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.