OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of occupational therapy (OT) on the self-management of function, pain, fatigue, and lived experience for people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: Five databases and gray literature were searched up to June 30, 2022. Three reviewers screened titles and abstracts, with two independently extracting and assessing full texts using the Cochrane risk of bias (quantitative) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) tools to assess study quality. Studies were categorized into four intervention types. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) (quantitative) and GRADE- Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (qualitative) were used to assess the quality of evidence for each intervention type.
RESULTS: Of 39 eligible papers, 29 were quantitative (n = 2,029), 4 qualitative (n = 50), and 6 mixed methods (n = 896). Good evidence supports patient education and behavior change programs for improving pain and function, particularly group sessions of joint protection education, but these do not translate to long-term improvements for RA (>24 months). Comprehensive OT had mixed evidence (limited to home OT and an arthritis gloves program), whereas limited evidence was available for qualitative insights, splints and assistive devices, and self-management for fatigue.
CONCLUSION: Although patient education is promising for self-managing RA, no strong evidence was found to support OT programs for self-managing fatigue or patient experience and long-term effectiveness. More research is required on lived experience, and the long-term efficacy of self-management approaches incorporating OT, particularly timing programs to meet the individual's conditional needs (i.e., early or established RA) to build on the few studies to date.
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease. The disease has a serious impact on mental health and requires more effective non-pharmacological interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of patient education on psychological status and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database were screened for articles published until November 2, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education for RA were included. Outcomes measures included pain, physical function, disease activity, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), anxiety, depression, Arthritis Self-Efficacy (pain, other symptoms, total), and General health. For each outcome, standardized mean differences or mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (<i>n</i> = 2,276) were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant overall effect in favor of patient education for physical function [SMD = −0.52, 95% CI (−0.96, −0.08), <i>I</i>² = 93%, <i>P</i> = 0.02], disease activity [SMD = −1.97, 95% CI (−3.24, −0.71), <i>I</i>² = 97%, <i>P</i> = 0.002], ASE (pain) [SMD = −1.24, 95% CI (−2.05, −0.43), <i>I</i>² = 95%, <i>P</i> = 0.003], ASE (other symptoms) [SMD = −0.25, 95% CI (−0.41, −0.09), <i>I</i>² = 25%, <i>P</i> = 0.002], ASE (total) [SMD = −0.67, 95% CI (−1.30, −0.05), <i>I</i>² = 90%, <i>P</i> = 0.03], and general health [SMD = −1.11, 95% CI (−1.36, −0.86), <i>I</i>² = 96%, <i>P</i> < 0.00001]. No effects were found for anxiety [SMD = 0.17, 95% CI (−0.64, 0.98), <i>I</i>² = 82%, <i>P</i> = 0.68], depression [SMD = −0.18, 95% CI (−0.52, 0.15), <i>I</i>² = 52%, <i>P</i> = 0.28], pain [SMD = −0.37, 95% CI (−0.80, 0.05), <i>I</i>² = 89%, <i>P</i> = 0.08], and CRP [SMD = −0.27, 95% CI (−0.57, 0.02), <i>I</i>² = 0%, <i>P</i> = 0.07]. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education may be effective in improving clinical outcomes and psychological status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Considering the methodological limitations of the included RCTs, more high-quality and large-sample RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
STUDY DESIGN: Invited literature review BACKGROUND: Arthritis is the leading cause of disability in adults, and research shows that people living with arthritis experience work instability, loss of independence, financial difficulties, and overall decreased quality of life. Current nonpharmacological treatments can be beneficial for short term relief; however, the evidence on these long-term treatments is limited. Ergonomic modifications have been used in the workplace to address musculoskeletal conditions to ensure proper fit of one's environment, and research shows that these modifications can decrease pain and injury and increase work productivity. A broader perspective on ergonomic approaches may be important to supporting individuals with arthritis within hand therapy.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This review proposes an expanded perspective on ergonomic approaches within hand therapy and explores published literature to identify potential benefits of applying ergonomic approaches for individuals with upper extremity arthritis.
METHODS: A systematic search and screening process was conducted to identify articles that implemented an ergonomic approach for the support of individuals with upper extremity osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
RESULTS: A total of 34 articles described interventions that employed ergonomics including task-based or general ergonomics (n = 17), contextualized supports (n = 8), or holistic, lifestyle approaches (n = 9). Only one study focused solely on individuals with osteoarthritis, whereas interventions for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis showed positive outcomes across these categories. Situational learning, building of patient self-efficacy, and development of new habits and routines are vital for carryover and implementation to support performance in daily life.
CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity for hand therapists to extend the scope of interventions provided as part of an ergonomic approach to supporting patients. Specifically, therapists can consider use of emerging technologies and telehealth that promote contextualization and follow-up for long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, a disabling and distressing condition, is common in adults. It is a global public health problem and economic burden on health and social care systems and on people with chronic pain. Psychological treatments aim to reduce pain, disability and distress. This review updates and extends its previous version, published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic pain in adults (age > 18 years) compared with active controls, or waiting list/treatment as usual (TAU).
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to 16 April 2020. We also examined reference lists and trial registries, and searched for studies citing retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of psychological treatments compared with active control or TAU of face-to-face therapies for adults with chronic pain. We excluded studies of headache or malignant disease, and those with fewer than 20 participants in any arm at treatment end.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged quality of evidence (GRADE). We compared cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural therapy (BT), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with active control or TAU at treatment end, and at six month to 12 month follow-up. We did not analyse the few trials of other psychological treatments. We assessed treatment effectiveness for pain intensity, disability, and distress. We extracted data on adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment.
MAIN RESULTS: We added 41 studies (6255 participants) to 34 of the previous review's 42 studies, and now have 75 studies in total (9401 participants at treatment end). Most participants had fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, or mixed chronic pain. Most risk of bias domains were at high or unclear risk of bias, with selective reporting and treatment expectations mostly at unclear risk of bias. AEs were inadequately recorded and/or reported across studies. CBT The largest evidence base was for CBT (59 studies). CBT versus active control showed very small benefit at treatment end for pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.01; 3235 participants; 23 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04; 2543 participants; 19 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.00; 3297 participants; 24 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found small benefits for CBT over TAU at treatment end for pain (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10; 2572 participants; 29 studies; moderate-quality evidence), disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.19; 2524 participants; 28 studies; low-quality evidence), and distress (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.24; 2559 participants; 27 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Effects were largely maintained at follow-up for CBT versus TAU, but not for CBT versus active control. Evidence quality for CBT outcomes ranged from moderate to low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for both comparisons. BT We analysed eight studies (647 participants). We found no evidence of difference between BT and active control at treatment end (pain SMD -0.67, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.20, very low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.54, very low-quality evidence; or distress SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.01, very low-quality evidence). At follow-up, effects were similar. We found no evidence of difference between BT and TAU (pain SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.17, low-quality evidence; disability SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19, moderate-quality evidence; distress SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.54, low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, we found one to three studies with no evidence of difference between BT and TAU. We rated evidence for all BT versus active control outcomes as very low quality; for BT versus TAU. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to very low. We rated evidence for AEs as very low quality for BT versus active control. No studies of BT versus TAU reported AEs. ACT We analysed five studies (443 participants). There was no evidence of difference between ACT and active control for pain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.11, very low-quality evidence), disability (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.03, very low-quality evidence) or distress (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.07, very low-quality evidence) at treatment end. At follow-up, there was no evidence of effect for pain or distress (both very low-quality evidence), but two studies showed a large benefit for reducing disability (SMD -2.56, 95% CI -4.22 to -0.89, very low-quality evidence). Two studies compared ACT to TAU at treatment end. Results should be interpreted with caution. We found large benefits of ACT for pain (SMD -0.83, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.09, very low-quality evidence), but none for disability (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.41, very low-quality evidence), or distress (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.51 to 0.20, very low-quality evidence). Lack of data precluded analysis at follow-up. We rated evidence quality for AEs to be very low. We encourage caution when interpreting very low-quality evidence because the estimates are uncertain and could be easily overturned.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found sufficient evidence across a large evidence base (59 studies, over 5000 participants) that CBT has small or very small beneficial effects for reducing pain, disability, and distress in chronic pain, but we found insufficient evidence to assess AEs. Quality of evidence for CBT was mostly moderate, except for disability, which we rated as low quality. Further trials may provide more precise estimates of treatment effects, but to inform improvements, research should explore sources of variation in treatment effects. Evidence from trials of BT and ACT was of moderate to very low quality, so we are very uncertain about benefits or lack of benefits of these treatments for adults with chronic pain; other treatments were not analysed. These conclusions are similar to our 2012 review, apart from the separate analysis of ACT.
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory, autoimmune disease that results in joint deformity and immobility of the musculoskeletal system. The major goals of treatment are to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, slow down or stop joint damage, prevent disability, and preserve or improve the person's sense of well-being and ability to function. Tai Chi, interchangeably known as Tai Chi Chuan, is an ancient Chinese health-promoting martial art form that has been recognized in China as an effective arthritis therapy for centuries. This is an update of a review published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of Tai Chi as a treatment for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries from 2002 to September 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials examining the benefits (ACR improvement criteria or pain, disease progression, function, and radiographic progression), and harms (adverse events and withdrawals) of exercise programs with Tai Chi instruction or incorporating principles of Tai Chi philosophy. We included studies of any duration that included control groups who received either no therapy or alternate therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: Adding three studies (156 additional participants) to the original review, this update contains a total of seven trials with 345 participants. Participants were mostly women with RA, ranging in age from 16 to 80 years, who were treated in outpatient settings in China, South Korea, and the USA. The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, due to the lack of blinding of participants or assessors. Almost 75% of the studies did not report random sequence generation, and we judged the risk of bias as unclear for allocation concealment in the majority of studies. The duration of the Tai Chi programs ranged from 8 to 12 weeks.It is uncertain whether Tai Chi-based exercise programs provide a clinically important improvement in pain among Tai Chi participants compared to no therapy or alternate therapy. The change in mean pain in control groups, measured on visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 10 score, reduced score means less pain) ranged from a decrease of 0.51 to an increase of 1.6 at 12 weeks; in the Tai Chi groups, pain was reduced by a mean difference (MD) of -2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.19 to -1.11); 22% absolute improvement (95% CI, 11% to 32% improvement); 2 studies, 81 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding and attrition bias.There was very low-quality evidence, downgraded for, blinding, and attrition, that was inconclusive for an important difference in disease activity, measured using Disease Activity Scale (DAS-28-ESR) scores (0 to 10 scale, lower score means less disease activity), with no change in the control group and 0.40 reduction (95% CI -1.10 to 0.30) with Tai Chi; 4% absolute improvement (95% CI 11% improvement to 3% worsening); 1 study, 43 participants.For the assessment of function, the change in mean Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ; 0 to 3 scale, lower score means better function) ranged from 0 to 0.1 in the control group, and reduced by MD 0.33 in the Tai Chi group (95% CI -0.79 to 0.12); 11% absolute improvement (95% CI 26% improvement to 4% worsening); 2 studies, 63 participants; very low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision, blinding, and attrition. We are unsure of an important improvement, as the results were inconclusive.Participants in Tai Chi programs were less likely than those in a control group to withdraw from studies at 8 to 12 weeks (19/180 in intervention groups versus 49/165 in control groups; risk ratio (RR) 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.86); absolute difference 17% fewer (95% CI 30% fewer to 3% fewer); 7 studies, 289 participants; low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and blinding.There were no data available for radiographic progression. Short-term adverse events were not reported by group, but in two studies there was some narrative description of joint and muscle soreness and cramps; long-term adverse events were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether Tai Chi has any effect on clinical outcomes (joint pain, activity limitation, function) in RA, and important effects cannot be confirmed or excluded, since all outcomes had very low-quality evidence. Withdrawals from study were greater in the control groups than the Tai Chi groups, based on low-quality evidence. Although the incidence of adverse events is likely to be low with Tai Chi, we are uncertain, as studies failed to explicitly report such events. Few minor adverse events (joint and muscle soreness and cramps) were described qualitatively in the narrative of two of the studies. This updated review provides minimal change in the conclusions from the previous review, i.e. a pain outcome.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION: Joint protection (JP) has been developed as a self-management intervention to assist people with hand arthritis to improve occupational performance and minimize joint deterioration over time.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: We examined the effectiveness between JP and usual care/control on pain, hand function, and grip strength levels for people with hand osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
METHODS: A search was performed in 5 databases from January 1990 to February 2017. Two independent assessors applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and a Grading of Recommendations Assessement, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was adopted.
RESULTS: For pain levels at short term, we found similar effects between JP and control standardized mean difference (SMD; -0.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.42 to 0.42, I2 = 49%), and at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.32, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.11, I2 = 0) and SMD (-0.27, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.12, I2 = 9%), respectively. For function levels at midterm and long-term follow-up, JP was favored over usual care SMD (-0.49, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.22, I2 = 34%) and SMD (-0.31, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11, I2 = 56%), respectively. For grip strength levels, at long term, JP was inferior over usual care mean difference (0.93, 95% CI: -0.74 to 2.61, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of very low to low quality indicates that the effects of JP programs compared with usual care/control on pain and hand function are too small to be clinically important at short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-ups for people with hand arthritis.
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory polyarthritis that frequently affects the hands and wrists. Hand exercises are prescribed to improve mobility and strength, and thereby hand function.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of hand exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), OTseeker, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to July 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared hand exercise with any non-exercise therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 841 people (aged 20 to 94 years) in the review. Most studies used validated diagnostic criteria and involved home programmes.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from one study indicated uncertainty about whether exercise improves hand function in the short term (< 3 months). On a 0 to 80 points hand function test (higher scores mean better function), the exercise group (n = 11) scored 76.1 points and control group (n = 13) scored 75 points.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that exercise compared to usual care probably slightly improves hand function (mean difference (MD) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 7.42; n = 449) in the medium term (3 to 11 months) and in the long term (12 months or beyond) (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.86 to 7.74; n = 438). The absolute change on a 0-to-100 hand function scale (higher scores mean better function) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) were 5% (95% CI 2% to 7%); 8 (95% CI 5 to 20) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 8%); 9 (95% CI 6 to 27), respectively. A 4% to 5% improvement indicates a minimal clinical benefit.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pain (MD -27.98, 95% CI -48.93 to -7.03; n = 124) in the short term. The absolute change on a 0-to-100-millimetre scale (higher scores mean more pain) was -28% (95% CI -49% to -7%) and NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 11).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that there is probably little or no difference between exercise and usual care on pain in the medium (MD -2.8, 95% CI - 6.96 to 1.36; n = 445) and long term (MD -3.7, 95% CI -8.1 to 0.7; n = 437). On a 0-to-100 scale, the absolute changes were -3% (95% CI -7% to 2%) and -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%), respectively.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 141) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved grip strength in the short term. The standardised mean difference for the left hand was 0.44 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.78), re-expressed as 3.5 kg (95% CI 0.87 to 6.1); and for the right hand 0.46 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.8), re-expressed as 4 kg (95% CI 1.13 to 7).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean grip strength (in kg) of both hands in the medium term (MD 1.4, 95% CI -0.27 to 3.07; n = 400), relative change 11% (95% CI -2% to 13%); and in the long term (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.62 to 3.02; n = 355), relative change 9% (95% CI -5% to 23%).Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies (n = 120) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pinch strength (in kg) in the short term. The MD and relative change for the left and right hands were 0.51 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.9) and 44% (95% CI 11% to 78%); and 0.82 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.21) and 68% (95% CI 36% to 101%).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean pinch strength of both hands in the medium (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.74; n = 396) and long term (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.88; n = 351). The relative changes were 8% (95% CI -4% to 19%) and 10% (95% CI -2% to 22%).No study evaluated the American College of Rheumatology 50 criteria.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that people who also received exercise with strategies for adherence were probably more adherent than those who received routine care alone in the medium term (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.48; n = 438) and NNTB 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). In the long term, the risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28; n = 422).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study (n = 246) indicated no adverse events with exercising. The other six studies did not report adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether exercise improves hand function or pain in the short term. It probably slightly improves function but has little or no difference on pain in the medium and long term. It is uncertain whether exercise improves grip and pinch strength in the short term, and probably has little or no difference in the medium and long term. The ACR50 response is unknown. People who received exercise with adherence strategies were probably more adherent in the medium term than who did not receive exercise, but with little or no difference in the long term. Hand exercise probably does not lead to adverse events. Future research should consider hand and wrist function as their primary outcome, describe exercise following the TIDieR guidelines, and evaluate behavioural strategies.
