19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Effect of an App for Day-to-Day Postoperative Care Education on Patients With Total Knee Replacement: Randomized Controlled Trial

      research-article
      , MSc 1 , 2 , , , PhD 3 , , PhD 4 , , MD 4 , , MD, PhD 5 , , PhD 6 , , PhD 7 , , MD 7 , , PhD 8 , , MD 8 , , MD, PhD 2 , , MD, PhD 9
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR mHealth and uHealth
      JMIR Publications
      patient education, postoperative care, smartphone, self-management, ehealth, telemedicine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Patients who undergo primary Total Knee Replacement surgery (TKR) are often discharged within 1-3 days after surgery. With this relatively short length of hospital stay, a patient’s self-management is a crucial factor in optimizing the outcome of their treatment. In the case of TKR, self-management primarily involves adequate pain management, followed by physiotherapy exercises and daily self-care activities. Patients are educated on all these topics by hospital staff upon discharge from the hospital but often struggle to comprehend this information due to its quantity, complexity, and the passive mode of communication used to convey it.

          Objective

          This study primarily aims to determine whether actively educating TKR patients with timely, day-to-day postoperative care information through an app could lead to a decrease in their level of pain compared to those who only receive standard information about their recovery through the app. In addition, physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and daily self-care activities, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption were also assessed.

          Methods

          A multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed in five Dutch hospitals. In total, 213 patients who had undergone elective, primary, unilateral TKR participated. All patients had access to an app for their smartphone and tablet to guide them after discharge. The intervention group could unlock day-to-day information by entering a personal code. The control group only received weekly, basic information. Primary (level of pain) and secondary outcomes (physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and activities of daily self-care, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption) were measured using self-reported online questionnaires. All outcomes were measured weekly in the four weeks after discharge, except for physical functioning and quality of life, which were measured at baseline and at four weeks after discharge. Data was analyzed using Student t tests, chi-square tests, and linear mixed models for repeated measures.

          Results

          In total, 114 patients were enrolled in the intervention group (IG) and 99 in the control group (CG). Four weeks after discharge, patients in the IG performed significantly better than patients in the CG on all dimensions of pain: pain at rest (mean 3.45 vs mean 4.59; P=.001), pain during activity (mean 3.99 vs mean 5.08; P<.001) and pain at night (mean 4.18 vs mean 5.21; P=.003). Additionally, significant differences were demonstrated in favor of the intervention group for all secondary outcomes.

          Conclusions

          In the four weeks following TKR, the active and day-to-day education of patients via the app significantly decreased their level of pain and improved their physical functioning, quality of life, ability to perform physiotherapy exercises and activities of daily self-care, satisfaction with information, perceived involvement by the hospital, and health care consumption compared to standard patient education. Given the rising number of TKR patients and the increased emphasis on self-management, we suggest using an app with timely postoperative care education as a standard part of care.

          Trial Registration

          Netherlands Trial Register NTR7182; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6992

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why don't patients do their exercises? Understanding non-compliance with physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

            To understand reasons for compliance and non-compliance with a home based exercise regimen by patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A qualitative study, nested within a randomised controlled trial, examining the effectiveness of physiotherapy in reducing pain and increasing mobility in knee osteoarthritis. In the intervention arm, participants undertook a series of simple exercises and repositioning of the kneecap using tape. In depth interviews were conducted with a subset of participants in the intervention arm using open ended questions, guided by a topic schedule, to encourage patients to describe their experiences and reflect on why they did or did not comply with the physiotherapy. Interviews were audiotaped, fully transcribed and analysed thematically according to the method of constant comparison. A model explaining factors influencing compliance was developed. Patients were interviewed at home. The study was nested within a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Twenty participants in the intervention arm of the randomised trial were interviewed three months after they had completed the physiotherapy programme. Eight were interviewed again one year later. Initial compliance was high because of loyalty to the physiotherapist. Reasoning underpinning continued compliance was more complex, involving willingness and ability to accommodate exercises within everyday life, the perceived severity of symptoms, attitudes towards arthritis and comorbidity and previous experiences of osteoarthritis. A necessary precondition for continued compliance was the perception that the physiotherapy was effective in ameliorating unpleasant symptoms. Non-compliance with physiotherapy, as with drug therapies, is common. From the patient's perspective, decisions about whether or not to comply are rational but often cannot be predicted by therapists or researchers. Ultimately, this study suggests that health professionals need to understand reasons for non-compliance if they are to provide supportive care and trialists should include qualitative research within trials whenever levels of compliance may have an impact on the effectiveness of the intervention.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Self-management education programmes for osteoarthritis.

              Self-management education programmes are complex interventions specifically targeted at patient education and behaviour modification. They are designed to encourage people with chronic disease to take an active self-management role to supplement medical care and improve outcomes. To assess the effectiveness of self-management education programmes for people with osteoarthritis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PyscINFO, SCOPUS and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched, without language restriction, on 17 January 2013. We checked references of reviews and included trials to identify additional studies. Randomised controlled trials of self-management education programmes in people with osteoarthritis were included. Studies with participants receiving passive recipients of care and studies comparing one type of programme versus another were excluded. In addition to standard methods we extracted components of the self-management interventions using the eight domains of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ), and contextual and participant characteristics using PROGRESS-Plus and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Outcomes included self-management of osteoarthritis, participant's positive and active engagement in life, pain, global symptom score, self-reported function, quality of life and withdrawals (including dropouts and those lost to follow-up). We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes using the GRADE approach. We included twenty-nine studies (6,753 participants) that compared self-management education programmes to attention control (five studies), usual care (17 studies), information alone (four studies) or another intervention (seven studies). Although heterogeneous, most interventions included elements of skill and technique acquisition (94%), health-directed activity (85%) and self-monitoring and insight (79%); social integration and support were addressed in only 12%. Most studies did not provide enough information to assess all PROGRESS-Plus items. Eight studies included predominantly Caucasian, educated female participants, and only four provided any information on participants' health literacy. All studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias for self-reported outcomes; 20 studies were at high risk of selection bias, 16 were at high risk of attrition bias, two were at high risk of reporting bias and 12 were at risk of other biases. We deemed attention control as the most appropriate and thus the main comparator.Compared with attention control, self-management programmes may not result in significant benefits at 12 months. Low-quality evidence from one study (344 people) indicates that self-management skills were similar in active and control groups: 5.8 points on a 10-point self-efficacy scale in the control group, and the mean difference (MD) between groups was 0.4 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to 1.19). Low-quality evidence from four studies (575 people) indicates that self-management programmes may lead to a small but clinically unimportant reduction in pain: the standardised mean difference (SMD) between groups was -0.26 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.09); pain was 6 points on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) in the control group, treatment resulted in a mean reduction of 0.8 points (95% CI -0.14 to -0.3) on a 10-point scale, with number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 5 to 23). Low-quality evidence from one study (251 people) indicates that the mean global osteoarthritis score was 4.2 on a 0 to 10-point symptom scale (lower better) in the control group, and treatment reduced symptoms by a mean of 0.14 points (95% CI -0.54 to 0.26). This result does not exclude the possibility of a clinically important benefit in some people (0.5 point reduction included in 95% CI). Low-quality evidence from three studies (574 people) showed no signficant difference in function between groups (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.11); mean function was 1.29 points on a 0 to 3-point scale in the control group, and treatment resulted in a mean improvement of 0.04 points with self-management (95% CI -0.10 to 0.02). Low-quality evidence from one study (165 people) showed no between-group difference in quality of life (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01) from a control group mean of 0.57 units on 0 to 1 well-being scale. Moderate-quality evidence from five studies (937 people) shows similar withdrawal rates between self-management (13%) and control groups (12%): RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.57). Positive and active engagement in life was not measured.Compared with usual care, moderate-quality evidence from 11 studies (up to 1,706 participants) indicates that self-management programmes probably provide small benefits up to 21 months, in terms of self-management skills, pain, osteoarthritis symptoms and function, although these are of doubtful clinical importance, and no improvement in positive and active engagement in life or quality of life. Withdrawal rates were similar. Low to moderate quality evidence indicates no important differences in self-management , pain, symptoms, function, quality of life or withdrawal rates between self-management programmes and information alone or other interventions (exercise, physiotherapy, social support or acupuncture). Low to moderate quality evidence indicates that self-management education programmes result in no or small benefits in people with osteoarthritis but are unlikely to cause harm.Compared with attention control, these programmes probably do not improve self-management skills, pain, osteoarthritis symptoms, function or quality of life, and have unknown effects on positive and active engagement in life. Compared with usual care, they may slightly improve self-management skills, pain, function and symptoms, although these benefits are of unlikely clinical importance.Further studies investigating the effects of self-management education programmes, as delivered in the trials in this review, are unlikely to change our conclusions substantially, as confounding from biases across studies would have likely favoured self-management. However, trials assessing other models of self-management education programme delivery may be warranted. These should adequately describe the intervention they deliver and consider the expanded PROGRESS-Plus framework and health literacy, to explore issues of health equity for recipients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                October 2019
                21 October 2019
                : 7
                : 10
                : e15323
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Interactive Studios Rosmalen Netherlands
                [2 ] Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare Nijmegen Netherlands
                [3 ] Máxima MC Veldhoven Netherlands
                [4 ] Sint Anna Hospital Geldrop Netherlands
                [5 ] Albert Schweitzer Hospital Dordrecht Netherlands
                [6 ] Radboud university medical center Nijmegen Netherlands
                [7 ] Jeroen Bosch Hospital 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
                [8 ] Haaglanden Medical Center 's-Gravenhage Netherlands
                [9 ] VieCuri Medical Centre Venlo Netherlands
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Thomas Timmers thomas@ 123456interactivestudios.nl
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2534-5799
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2060-4472
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9389-0644
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-3723
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-5844
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9526-3775
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-0471
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4848-9602
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0965-5455
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0602-8955
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3134-487X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-4011
                Article
                v7i10e15323
                10.2196/15323
                6914303
                31638594
                75618f14-3a27-452e-b98f-0c4a5bc84223
                ©Thomas Timmers, Loes Janssen, Walter van der Weegen, Dirk Das, Willem-Jan Marijnissen, Gerjon Hannink, Babette C van der Zwaard, Adriaan Plat, Bregje Thomassen, Jan-Willem Swen, Rudolf B Kool, Frederik Okke Lambers Heerspink. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 21.10.2019.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 1 July 2019
                : 24 July 2019
                : 24 August 2019
                : 23 September 2019
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                patient education,postoperative care,smartphone,self-management,ehealth,telemedicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article