Protocol for a multicenter study on effectiveness and economics of the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS): a clinical pathway for knee arthroplasty.
Clinical trial protocol
Health plan implementation
Knee arthroplasty
Occupational health service
Orthopedics
Physical modalities
Return to work
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2023
16 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
12
12
2022
accepted:
27
01
2023
entrez:
17
3
2023
pubmed:
18
3
2023
medline:
21
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Optimizing return to work (RTW) after knee arthroplasty (KA) is becoming increasingly important due to a growing incidence of KA and poor RTW outcomes after KA. We developed the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS) clinical pathway for optimized RTW after KA. Since the effectiveness and cost analysis of the BAAS clinical pathway are still unknown, analysis on effectiveness and costs of BAAS is imperative. This protocol paper has been written in line with the standards of Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trails. To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for RTW, we will perform a multicenter prospective cohort study with patients who decided to receive a total KA (TKA) or an unicompartmental KA (UKA). To evaluate the effectiveness of BAAS regarding RTW, a comparison to usual care will be made using individual patient data on RTW from prospectively performed cohort studies in the Netherlands. One of the strengths of this study is that the feasibility for the BAAS clinical pathway was tested at first hand. Also, we will use validated questionnaires and functional tests to assess the patient's recovery using robust outcomes. Moreover, the intervention was performed in two hospitals serving the targeted patient group and to reduce selection bias and improve generalizability. The limitations of this study protocol are that the lead author has an active role as a medical case manager (MCM) in one of the hospitals. Additionally, we will use the data from other prospective Dutch cohort studies to compare our findings regarding RTW to usual care. Since we will not perform an RCT, we will use propensity analysis to reduce the bias due to possible differences between these cohorts. This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrails.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05690347 , date of first registration: 19-01-2023).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Optimizing return to work (RTW) after knee arthroplasty (KA) is becoming increasingly important due to a growing incidence of KA and poor RTW outcomes after KA. We developed the Back At work After Surgery (BAAS) clinical pathway for optimized RTW after KA. Since the effectiveness and cost analysis of the BAAS clinical pathway are still unknown, analysis on effectiveness and costs of BAAS is imperative.
METHOD
METHODS
This protocol paper has been written in line with the standards of Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trails. To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for RTW, we will perform a multicenter prospective cohort study with patients who decided to receive a total KA (TKA) or an unicompartmental KA (UKA). To evaluate the effectiveness of BAAS regarding RTW, a comparison to usual care will be made using individual patient data on RTW from prospectively performed cohort studies in the Netherlands.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
One of the strengths of this study is that the feasibility for the BAAS clinical pathway was tested at first hand. Also, we will use validated questionnaires and functional tests to assess the patient's recovery using robust outcomes. Moreover, the intervention was performed in two hospitals serving the targeted patient group and to reduce selection bias and improve generalizability. The limitations of this study protocol are that the lead author has an active role as a medical case manager (MCM) in one of the hospitals. Additionally, we will use the data from other prospective Dutch cohort studies to compare our findings regarding RTW to usual care. Since we will not perform an RCT, we will use propensity analysis to reduce the bias due to possible differences between these cohorts.
TRAIL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
This study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrails.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05690347 , date of first registration: 19-01-2023).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36927339
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06203-5
pii: 10.1186/s12891-023-06203-5
pmc: PMC10018987
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05690347']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
199Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Clin J Pain. 2016 Jul;32(7):624-30
pubmed: 26418360
Rheumatol Int. 2015 Dec;35(12):2059-67
pubmed: 26119221
Musculoskeletal Care. 2022 Dec;20(4):950-959
pubmed: 35506461
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Feb;85(2):109-23
pubmed: 21660469
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1672-1682
pubmed: 30496082
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Aug;24(8):1317-29
pubmed: 27012756
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Mar 31;23(1):307
pubmed: 35361173
Acta Orthop. 2022 Jun 20;93:568-573
pubmed: 35727108
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jun;29(6):1169-1175.e2
pubmed: 24581898
J Occup Rehabil. 2022 Sep 9;:
pubmed: 36083360
J Occup Rehabil. 2021 Sep;31(3):627-637
pubmed: 33515342
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Feb;142:60-99
pubmed: 34715311
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Apr;23(4):594-600
pubmed: 25579802
Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Apr 15;132(8):919-23
pubmed: 3978515
J Vestib Res. 2006;16(4-5):233-43
pubmed: 17538213
Occup Med (Lond). 2018 Dec 26;68(9):626-630
pubmed: 30260436
J Occup Rehabil. 2002 Dec;12(4):269-75
pubmed: 12389478
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jan;44(2):291-300
pubmed: 32441539
Value Health. 2015 Sep;18(6):753-8
pubmed: 26409601
Pain. 2013 Sep;154(9):1588-1594
pubmed: 23707268
J Knee Surg. 2022 Sep;35(11):1249-1259
pubmed: 33472262
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022 Sep;20(5):781-782
pubmed: 35840812
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96
pubmed: 9699158
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015 Dec;38(6):506-14
pubmed: 27440100
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A1534
pubmed: 20619009
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Dec;54(24):1451-1462
pubmed: 33239350
BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 08;13:305
pubmed: 23565883
J Occup Rehabil. 2021 Mar;31(1):72-83
pubmed: 32378023
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Oct;90(10):1785-94
pubmed: 19801072
Rheumatol Int. 2016 Sep;36(9):1249-54
pubmed: 27342661
Work. 2021;69(3):895-902
pubmed: 34180460
Physiother Theory Pract. 2022 Apr 26;:1-7
pubmed: 35471847
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jun 9;20(1):523
pubmed: 32517684
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Feb 23;20(1):90
pubmed: 30797228
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 May 25;1:17
pubmed: 12801417
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020 Mar 26;6(1):e000664
pubmed: 32341795
Physiotherapy. 2019 Mar;105(1):108-113
pubmed: 30224081
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021 Aug;51(8):CPG1-CPG102
pubmed: 34338006
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Aug 19;102(16):1445-1453
pubmed: 32453116
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Aug 19;6:63
pubmed: 18713451
CMAJ. 2019 Apr 29;191(17):E469-E475
pubmed: 31036609
J Occup Rehabil. 2022 Dec;32(4):620-628
pubmed: 35347539
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A550
pubmed: 27201788
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Apr 18;23(1):364
pubmed: 35436874