↓ Skip to main content

Task shifting in the care for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Protocol for a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Task shifting in the care for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Protocol for a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12891-021-04019-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingvild Kjeken, Kjetil Bergsmark, Ida K. Haugen, Toril Hennig, Merete Hermann-Eriksen, Vivian Tryving Hornburg, Åshild Hove, Anne Prøven, Trine Amalie Sjøvold, Barbara Slatkowsky-Christensen

Abstract

Current health policy states that patients with osteoarthritis (OA) should mainly be managed in primary health care. Still, research shows that patients with hand OA have poor access to recommended treatment in primary care, and in Norway, they are increasingly referred to rheumatologist consultations in specialist care. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we will test if a new model, where patients referred to consultation in specialist health care receive their first consultation by an occupational therapy (OT) specialist, is as safe and effective as the traditional model, where they receive their first consultation by a rheumatologist. More specifically, we will answer the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of patients with hand OA referred to specialist health care with regards to joint affection, disease activity, symptoms and function? 2. Is OT-led hand OA care as effective and safe as rheumatologist-led care with respect to treatment response, disease activity, symptoms, function and patient satisfaction? 3. Is OT-led hand OA care equal to, or more cost effective than rheumatologist-led care? 4. Which factors, regardless of hand OA care, predict improvement 6 and 12 months after baseline? Participants will be patients with hand OA diagnosed by a general practitioner and referred for consultation at one of two Norwegian departments of rheumatology. Those who agree will attend a clinical assessment and report their symptoms and function in validated outcome measures, before they are randomly selected to receive their first consultation by an OT specialist (n = 200) or by a rheumatologist (n = 200). OTs may refer patients to a rheumatologist consultation and vice versa. The primary outcome will be the number of patients classified as OMERACT/OARSI-responders after six months. Secondary outcomes are pain, function and satisfaction with care over the twelve-month trial period. The analysis of the primary outcome will be done by logistic regression. A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response probability will be formed, and non-inferiority of OT-led care will be claimed if the upper endpoint of this interval does not exceed 15%. The findings will improve access to evidence-based management of people with hand OA. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102788. Registered April 6th, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03102788?term=Kjeken&draw=2&rank=1 Date and version identifier: December 17th, 2020. First version.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 22 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 21 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2021.
All research outputs
#16,312,342
of 25,758,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,355
of 4,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,807
of 458,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#55
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 458,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.