4.7 Article

Primary care treatment of knee paina survey in older adults

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 46, 期 11, 页码 1694-1700

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem232

关键词

knee pain; knee osteoarthritis; treatment; primary care; older adults

资金

  1. Department of Health [2008 IPF PORCHERET] Funding Source: Medline
  2. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [2008 IPF Porcheret] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To describe the treatment of knee pain in older adults in primary care and to compare reported practice with published evidence. Methods. A semi-structured interview of older adults with knee pain about their use of 26 interventions for knee pain. Results. 201 adults were interviewed. A median of six interventions had been advised for each participant, with heat and ice (84%) the most frequently advised, followed by paracetamol (71%), compound opioid analgesics (59%) and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (59%). Three core treatments for knee pain (written information, exercise and weight loss) were advised to 16%, 46% and 39% of the participants, respectively. Half of the interventions had been initiated through 'self care'. Most core treatments had not been initiated before second-line interventions had been used, paracetamol being the exception. Referral to surgery was commonly initiated before more conservative options had been tried. Conclusions. Interventions recommended as core treatment for knee pain in older adults were underused - in particular, exercise, weight loss and the provision of written information. There appeared to be early reliance on pharmacological treatments with underuse of non-pharmacological interventions in early treatment choices. Self care played an important role in the management of this condition. The study provides clear evidence on the need to improve the delivery of core treatments for osteoarthritis and highlights the need to support and encourage self care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据