Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42675641›Full record

ArticleACR open rheumatology2026

Stakeholders' Perspectives on the Development of the Early Pain Intervention After Knee Replacement Model of Care: A Qualitative Study.

Navneet Chadha, Joshua R Zadro, Sam Adie, Ian A Harris, Ilana N Ackerman, Deanne E Jenkin, Blake F Dear, Christopher G Maher, Rachelle Buchbinder, Laurent Billot and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in ACR open rheumatology, 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

18 authors.

Navneet ChadhaInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0171-5542
Joshua R ZadroInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8981-2125
Sam AdieFaculty of Medicine & Health, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0780-4338
Ian A HarrisInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0887-7627
Ilana N AckermanMusculoskeletal Health and Wiser Health Care Units, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-1612
Deanne E JenkinFaculty of Medicine & Health, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5541-9015
Blake F DearSchool of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9324-3092
Christopher G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-7857
Rachelle BuchbinderMusculoskeletal Health and Wiser Health Care Units, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0597-0933
Laurent BillotThe George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4975-9793
Ian D CameronJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Bernadette BradySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2611-6736
Alexandra OrtegaSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Haiwad RashtiaSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, 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.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8534-195X
EPIK Study Group

Funding

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP2032516Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation 2023TCG0048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePersistent pain affects around 20% of Australians after total knee replacement (TKR), yet no dedicated Australian model of care exists to address this unmet need. The Early Pain Intervention after Knee replacement (EPIK) model is being developed, informed by the effective and cost-effective UK Support and Treatment After Replacement care pathway and extensive multistakeholder engagement. Before evaluating the EPIK model of care in a randomized controlled trial, it must be adapted for the Australian context. This qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholders' perspectives to inform this adaptation.

methodsThis qualitative descriptive study, guided by a subtle realist ontologic stance and a pragmatic epistemology, used semistructured interviews with key stakeholders across Australia. A preinterview screening questionnaire captured demographic, clinical, and professional characteristics which informed purposive sampling to ensure diverse views. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive analysis.

resultsSixty-one participants were interviewed (9 patients, 20 physiotherapists, 15 orthopedic surgeons, 14 general practitioners, 1 nurse, and 2 health fund managers) across all six states and the Australian Capital Territory, with 75% residing in metropolitan areas. We identified four key themes: (1) living with pain after TKR, (2) acceptability and value of EPIK, (3) defining the scope of the EPIK care coordinator, and (4) infrastructure and system-level challenges.

conclusionThe EPIK model was well accepted by stakeholders as the first approach designed to improve care coordination for Australians with persistent pain after TKR, with potential to support a more efficient and patient-centered health care system. These insights will inform the EPIK model, which will be tested in a registry-nested randomized controlled trial.

Identifiers

PMID42675641
PMCPMC13530273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.