Supporting the implementation of Osteoarthritis Management Programs in low-and middle-income settings: Understanding clinician training outcomes alongside perceived program barriers and facilitators in Malawi

Nonhlanhla S. Mkumbuzi, Esther Jiya, Enock M. Chisati, Joanne L. Kemp, Christian Barton, Allison Ezzat
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.07.25321791

ABSTRACT

Objective To examine Malawian physiotherapists’ knowledge and beliefs about Osteoarthritis (OA) and their perceived capabilities to deliver an Osteoarthritis Management Program (OMP) to people with knee and hip OA; and to identify OMP barriers and facilitators in Malawi.

Design Two-phased mixed methods formative evaluation

Methods Phase 1: Malawian physiotherapists participated in the GLA:D® Australia training course and answered quantitative pre-and-post course questions that were descriptively summarized, and analysed using McNemar’s test, where appropriate. Phase 2: semi-structured focus groups generated qualitative data that were thematically analysed and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Mixed methods data were integrated through triangulation.

Results Eleven Malawian physiotherapists [9 (82%) female, 10 (91%) with 5–10 years clinical experience] participated. Post training course, participants’ knowledge of OA management increased regarding the benefits of therapeutic exercise (p=0.002), importance of weight management (p=0.004), and acceptable symptoms profile (p=0.008). Participants’ confidence and beliefs in managing knee and hip OA also increased. Implementation barriers included program costs, current medical management of OA with painkillers, and infrastructure challenges. Implementation facilitators included the content and organisation of GLA:D®, the ability to adapt the program, and OA awareness and education among other health professionals.

Conclusion Knowledge, confidence, and beliefs in managing knee and hip OA improved post GLA:D® training in Malawian physiotherapists. Increasing education of physiotherapists, other health professionals and the general public about evidence-based OA management and making contextual adaptions to the GLA:D® training and program structure may facilitate future implementation of OMP, such as GLA:D®, in low-and-middle income countries.

INTRODUCTION

Non-communicable diseases account for 61% of global disability adjusted life years, with osteoarthritis (OA) affecting 595 million people globally, thus contributing substantially to this burden.1,2 Knee and hip OA cause debilitating joint pain and stiffness, activity limitations, and loss of productivity3–5 at the individual level, alongside significant economic burden at community and healthcare systems levels worldwide.6 All high quality clinical guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA recommend patient education and exercise therapy as critical first line interventions.7,8 Exercise-therapy has been found to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life, while also being cost-effective and may allow some patients to delay or avoid joint replacement surgery. 9–12 Globally, many individuals with OA, including those who live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), do not have access to exercise therapy or patient education.6

The diagnoses of hip and knee OA are increasing in LMICs1,13. Between 2010 and 2017, the prevalence of OA in South Africa, Brazil, and Nepal rose by 9, 14, and 20%, respectively.2 Recent studies in Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, and Cameroon also reported OA prevalence of up to 37%.13,14 However, the majority of first line interventions developed and evaluated for the management of OA have been conducted in high-income countries.15–18 Hence, little is known about how to adapt and implement evidence-based first line interventions developed in high or upper middle income settings into low income settings for the management of knee and hip OA.

The Good Life with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®) program is an evidence-based hip and knee Osteoarthritis Management Program (OMP) that consists of supervised group education and exercise-therapy program.15,16 The program trains physiotherapists to deliver high quality education and individualized exercise-therapy to patients across the full spectrum of OA severity and has been implemented in more than ten high income countries worldwide.16 Program evaluation of GLA:D® in Australia found that 75% of people report clinically meaningful improvement in pain or quality of life, and 3 of 4 people wanting surgery prior to participation did not have surgery and no longer desired surgery at 12-months follow up.19,20 Despite these demonstrated clinical benefits of the GLA:D® program in high income countries, it has not been implemented in any LMICs.15 It is unknown how it could be contextually adapted for implementation in a low income country and if GLA:D® would be clinically effective or considered culturally appropriate in these settings.21–23

The aim of the present study was two-fold. Firstly, to examine Malawian physiotherapists’ knowledge and beliefs about OA and their perceived capabilities to provide an OMP to people with knee and hip OA. Secondly, to identify barriers and facilitators of implementing the physiotherapist training and the OMP for people with OA in Malawi. This work will generate new knowledge that could contribute to the future implementation of OMP in Malawi and other LMICs.

METHODS

Study design

A two-phased mixed methods formative evaluation was conducted to develop a comprehensive understanding of the feasibility of future implementation of the GLA:D® program in Malawi from the perspective of physiotherapists. A mixed methods design is highly suited to the examination of complex phenomena and hard-to-measure constructs as it allows a research question to be approached from multiple perspectives.24 This convergent parallel design collected quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus group) data simultaneously before comparing and relating the findings together.

In phase 1, Malawian physiotherapists participated in the GLA:D® Australia training course and answered quantitative pre-and-post course questions to understand their knowledge and beliefs about OA management. In phase 2, physiotherapists perspectives on factors influences the implementation of GLA:D® in Malawi was explored using semi-structured focus groups. These two phases produced complementary results which were triangulated to produce a deeper, more complete understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with implementation of GLA:D® in Malawi.

Study reporting was guided by the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) checklist25 and Good reporting of a mixed methods (GRAMM) study checklist26 (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5). Ethical approval was obtained from the College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Malawi (P.08/22/3707) and La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee, Australia (REF: HEC23003).

Participants

Malawian physiotherapists were purposively recruited by a local research team member (EC) via the Malawian Physiotherapy Association networks, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, social media, and word of mouth. Sampling sought to engage a diverse group of physiotherapists from a variety of practice settings (public and private clinic or hospital) with a range of clinical experience and professional development training. Eligibility criteria were that physiotherapists had to be registered to practice in Malawi, have a minimum 50% of their workload dedicated to patient care, and regularly treat patients with hip or knee OA. Physiotherapists with previous GLA:D® training were ineligible. A pragmatic sample size of minimum ten participants were targeted to meet the aims of this formative evaluation.

GLA:D® Training course

Participants engaged in an online, modified version of the GLA:D® Australia clinician training course delivered by members of the GLA:D® Australia leadership team (JK, CB, AE). Participants attended together at the Rehabilitation Sciences Department of Kamuzu University of Health Sciences in Blantyre, Malawi. The course was delivered in 4 hour sessions over three consecutive days. Briefly, the course included lectures and discussions on OA pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, with an emphasis on first line care delivered by physiotherapists (education, exercise). Additionally, participants engaged in educational role playing scenarios and practiced the standardized GLA:D® exercises, including how to modify exercises based on patient’s individual capacity and equipment access.19

Phase 1: Quantitative Data Collection & Analyses

Demographic and practice details were collected from participants. Immediately before and after the GLA:D® training course, participants answered questions evaluating their OA knowledge and management (21 questions); self-efficacy and beliefs in their ability to provide first line care for hip and knee OA (9 questions); beliefs regarding evidence for different interventions for hip and knee OA (15 questions); and confidence in abilities to deliver different interventions for hip and knee OA (14 questions). After the training course, participants answered an additional 16 questions on GLA:D® policies and procedures and 6 GLA:D® training course evaluation questions.

Demographic and practice characteristics were summarized descriptively using frequency (percentage). Responses to all further questions were also summarized descriptively using frequency (percentage) or median (Q1;Q3), as appropriate, and percent change between pre and post GLA:D® course was reported. McNemar’s test for paired, non-parametric data examined significant differences between pre-and-post GLA:D® training course questions (p < 0.05). This included the proportion of correct responses on OA knowledge and management (overall and for each question), self-efficacy in ability to provide first line care (dichotomized into strongly agree and agree versus neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree); beliefs about evidence for interventions (dichotomized into strongly supports and supports versus unclear and doesn’t support), and confidence in delivering different interventions (dichotomized into very confident and confident versus average, below average, and not confident at all).

Phase 2: Qualitative Data Collection & Analysis

This phase was underpinned by an interpretive descriptive paradigm27 and informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).28 CFIR is a widely used determinants framework in global implementation research to guide the exploration of factors that influence program implementation. It has been used and evaluated as compatible for application in LMICs largely due to its comprehensiveness and flexibility.29 In this study, we used the recently updated version of CFIR, which includes 48 constructs within five domains.28

Immediately following the GLA:D® training course, participants engaged in a 2 hour semi-structured focus group via videoconference to explore factors (barriers and facilitators) influencing the implementation of GLA:D® in Malawi. The focus group involved three small group break out discussions interspersed with large group shared summary discussions. The topic guide was developed by the research team and consisted of open ended questions organized in the CFIR domains (Appendix A – Focus Group structure and questions). The topic guide was pilot tested with two Malawian physiotherapists not participating in the study and no changes were made. Experienced qualitative researchers facilitated the focus group [AE (women) and CB (man) both physiotherapists with PhDs, clinical experience with the GLA:D® program, and extensive qualitative training (>10 years)]. A third researcher also contributed to the analysis process [EJ (woman)]. None of the researchers had any prior relationship with the participants. Participants were aware that the research team included a mix of GLA:D® Australia leadership members and local African researchers with an interest in improving management of knee and hip OA in LMICs.

Focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed in NVivo qualitative data analysis software (QSR International Pty Ltd). Qualitative analysis used a multi-step inductive thematic approach.27 Throughout analysis, trustworthiness was enhanced by detailed reflective memoing after the focus group; prolonged engagement with data; and multiple, in-depth discussions of emerging themes by three authors.

Initially, two researchers (AE, EJ) independently reviewed and inductively coded transcripts line-by-line. They met multiple times to iteratively discuss, refine, and come to a shared understanding of a coding framework. Subsequently, they consolidated codes into subthemes and deductively mapped these to the five broad CFIR domains (Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Individuals, Implementation Process). Authors AE and CB met three times to reflect on and discuss the subthemes in relation to the CFIR framework. Next, one researcher (AE) further mapped the sub-themes to the 48 individual CFIR constructs within the five domains and interpreted each as an implementation barrier or facilitator. Barriers were conceptualized as themes where focus group participants perceived a negative impact on GLA:D® program implementation, whereas facilitators were conceptualized as having a positive impact on GLA:D® program implementation. The framework of CFIR constructs used for this final stage of analysis was shared with researcher EJ who independently repeated the mapping and classification of themes. All three researchers participated in final discussions to confirm data alignment with CFIR constructs, reach consensus on the classification of each sub-theme as a barrier or facilitator, and articulate a final theme for each CFIR domain.

Data Integration

After quantitative and qualitative data were analysed independently, they were triangulated through team discussion for a richer, more in-depth understanding of implementation of GLA:D in Malawi.

RESULTS

Eleven Malawian physiotherapists from a variety of practice settings participated in the study (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1: Demographic and practice characteristics of Malawian physiotherapists (n=11)

Phase 1: Quantitative results

Participants’ OA knowledge and management pre-and-post training course is summarized in Table 2. Briefly, participants’ knowledge of OA management increased regarding the benefits of therapeutic exercise (p=0.002), importance of weight management (p=0.004), and acceptable symptoms profile (p=0.008).

View this table:
Table 2: Pre-and post-GLA:D® training course OA knowledge and management among Malawian physiotherapists (n=11)

Participants’ confidence and beliefs in managing knee and hip OA increased post GLA:D® training are summarised in Figure 1. Pre-course, 54% strongly agreed or agreed that they have the skills, 45% strongly agreed or agreed have been trained, and 54% strongly agreed or agreed know how to deliver exercise and education to people with OA based on clinical guidelines. Comparatively, post-course the proportions of physiotherapists who agreed or strongly agreed increased to 100% for each of these three questions, with one being a statistically significant change (p=0.031).

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Malawian physiotherapists’ pre-and post-GLA:D® training knowledge and confidence in delivering the GLA:D® program (n=11)

Changes in participants’ beliefs about current evidence for any intervention were not statistically significant, including first line care (exercise therapy, patient education, and weight management) between pre and post training (Table 3; p>0.05).

View this table:
Table 3: Malawian physiotherapists’ pre-and post-GLA:D® training beliefs about current evidence for interventions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (n=11)

Physiotherapists’ confidence in delivering exercise-therapy and general patient education improved, but changes were not statistically significant (Figure 2; p>0.05). Additional questions on specific types of education (physical activity, self-management, pain medication) also shifted towards increased confidence, although less so for questions related to education about benefits and risks of total joint replacement and arthroscopy with 45% and 54% reporting below average confidence, respectively (Figure 2) (additional data in Supplementary Table 2).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Malawian physiotherapists’ pre-and post-GLA:D® training confidence in delivering interventions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (n=11)

After training, knowledge of GLA:D® procedures and practices was high with a median score of 91% (73, 100) (Supplementary Table 3). All (100%) participants understood the overall objectives of neuromuscular exercises and all participants considered themselves ready to deliver the GLA:D® program to patients.

Phase 2: Qualitative Results

Barriers and facilitators to GLA:D® implementation in Malawi aligned with all five CFIR domains and were mapped to 18 specific constructs and are summarized in Table 4 alongside illustrative quotations.

View this table:
Table 4: Barriers and Facilitators to GLA:D® Implementation in Malawi mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Innovation Domain: Content and organization of the GLA:D® program was thought to facilitate implementation for patients; however, program costs associated with implementation and operation were flagged as a critical barrier (Theme 1).

Outer Setting Domain: Numerous sociocultural and systems level barriers were identified such as the entrenched current medical model of management for OA that prioritizes painkillers and the overall greater focus of the health system on infectious diseases compared to chronic disease management. Yet, some participants suggested a recent shifting within the medical community for greater acceptance and earlier referral to physiotherapy for OA (Theme 2).

Inner Setting Domain: Key barriers identified included public hospital challenges (less infrastructure, care coordination, and equipment), with all participants agreeing that GLA:D® implementation would be easier in private settings. Rehabilitation technicians were suggested to assist with GLA:D® program in settings with few or no physiotherapists (Theme 3).

Individual’s Domain: Participants perceived that people with OA would have numerous barriers to accessing GLA:D® that pertained to capabilities (e.g. low literacy), opportunities (e.g. lack of transport), and motivation (fearful of pain). Conversely, individual facilitators identified included having private insurance and being open and accepting of the GLA:D® program and health professional advice.

Implementation Process Domain: Various facilitators of GLA:D® implementation in Malawi included further adaptations to physiotherapist training (e.g. incorporating African specific content) and the GLA:D® program (e.g. flexibility in number of sessions and delivery mode including one-on-one, telehealth); increasing awareness and education of other health professionals and the general public about OA and GLA:D®; and tailored patient focused strategies (e.g. make education material more visual) (theme 5).

DISCUSSION

This mixed methods formative evaluation aimed to understand the future feasibility of implementing an OMP in a LMIC. Quantitative surveys found that after training, physiotherapists improved their knowledge and confidence about OA management, practice guidelines, and delivering care. Qualitative focus groups highlighted multi-level local barriers and facilitators to target before moving forward with implementation. Integrated data indicates high satisfaction with the GLA:D® training course among Malawian physiotherapists and generated suggestions for adapting the physiotherapist training course and the GLA:D® program to the Malawian context.

Malawian physiotherapists had the largest improvements in knowledge post-training for the questions on weight loss, joint symptoms, and the benefits of exercise for OA outcomes. These questions all relate to first line treatment of hip and knee OA, thus are critical for physiotherapists to know.30 The results also show that prior to the GLA:D® training, all participants reported positive beliefs about the evidence for exercise therapy, patient education, and weight management in OA management.

These positive beliefs may be related to the qualitative finding that there has been a recent shift within the Malawian medical community for earlier referral to physiotherapy and exercise therapy for OA.

Our participants reported the high use of medications (painkillers) and the predominantly biomedical approach for the management of OA in Malawi. Other African studies mirror this management approach, as pain medication has been found to be the mainstay of OA management in rural South Africa,31 while in Nigeria only 11% of physiotherapists used therapeutic exercise as a treatment modality.32 This may be because physiotherapists are often not the first point of contact for patients in Africa, with physiotherapist-led OA care often being difficult to access, and considered unaffordable (needing to be paid for out of pocket).6 Hence, while our participants acknowledged the importance of these domains in the first line management, they seldom apply them in practice. Globally, despite ample evidence showing the efficacy of first line treatments in improving outcomes in OA, the gap between best evidence and practice persists.8,30,33

After training, Malawian physiotherapists reported improved confidence in delivering exercise therapy and education to people with hip and knee OA and improved confidence to follow clinical practice guidelines. Ideally, this will translate to improved patient care, as has been previously found in studies involving general practitioners and nurses.34,35 These studies found improved knowledge after engagement with learning activities such as internal in service training or courses led to clinicians improving the quality of care for their patients and increasing uptake of clinical practice guidelines. However, implementing new knowledge and improving clinical outcomes for patients with OA in Malawi, as in other LMICs, may be challenging as rehabilitation professionals and practice are not yet well integrated or prioritised into the health system.36 This was echoed in our qualitative findings, where participants highlighted the difficulty in implementing OA rehabilitation programs with minimal governmental support. Equally neglected is the training of rehabilitation professionals, development and implementation of treatment guidelines, and coordination of care.6,37,38 Therefore, as suggested by participants in the focus groups, successful implementation of OMP like GLA:D® in LMICs will not be facilitated by training physiotherapists and other rehabilitation professionals (e.g., rehabilitation technicians) alone. Raising awareness among other healthcare professionals, including nurses and physicians, and the general public on the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in the management of OA is also needed.

Malawian physiotherapists’ confidence in delivering education about total joint replacement and arthroscopic surgery was largely unchanged post-course. This is unsurprising as our participants qualitatively reported that joint replacement surgery is not available in Malawi. Hence, physiotherapists do not routinely discuss it with their patients. The global demand for joint replacement surgery is on the rise and predicted to further increase in high income countries.39,40 Consequently, desiring or receiving surgery is commonly reported in studies on OA in high income countries, and physiotherapists would have discussions about these procedures with their patients.15,19,41 In contrast, joint replacement procedures in LMICs are rare as limited orthopaedic services in these health systems prioritise traumatic injuries or orthopaedic complications of HIV infection and/or antiretroviral treatment.42–44 Going forward, the OMP content related to joint replacement surgery should be contextually adapted to be relevant to LMICs.

Our findings are similar to previous research examining GLA:D® training outcomes in physiotherapists. Malawian and Australian physiotherapists both showed improved confidence in knowing how to deliver exercise and education, as well as confidence in their ability to deliver exercise and education following clinical practice guidelines.45 Also reflective of our findings, the structure and organisation of the GLA:D® program, buy in from other health care providers, and a supportive organisational context were identified as key enablers to the implementation of the program by physiotherapists in Switzerland, Australia, and Canada.45–47 Malawian physiotherapists perceived the challenges associated with GLA:D® implementation to be greater in public hospitals, with implementation likely to be easier in private settings. The same was observed in Australia, where only 15% of physiotherapists and 11% of implementation sites in the GLA:D® Australia program are from public settings.19 Personal cost to patients, especially those with low incomes, was also identified as a potential barrier to implementation by rehabilitation professionals in Australia and Canada, similar to our sample.46 Our qualitative findings further suggested that rural settings may pose additional challenges in the Malawian context, such as lack of transportation and no scheduling of appointments. Similarly, research in Canada and Australia found that the GLA:D® program was not easily accessible in rural settings. However, when accessed, the program led to comparable outcomes in patients from urban or rural settings.19,48

In our focus groups, participants suggested that telehealth may be a viable option for facilitating physiotherapist follow up, while reducing transportation burden. GLA:D® delivered by telehealth is reported to be acceptable and provides similar outcomes as in-person OA management.49–51 However, barriers to telehealth adoption such as computer literacy, internet connectivity, and equipment access have been noted even in high income countries.49,50 Additionally, prior experience with telehealth influences its acceptability among OA patients.49 Notably, South African patients with OA were sceptical of telerehabilitation programs as they lack physical interaction, although they acknowledge the positives such as accessibility, and convenience.52

The study findings should be considered in the context of some limitations. Firstly, this formative evaluation engaged with 11 Malawian physiotherapists in one region (Blantyre), which may limit the transferability of our results to other Malawian physiotherapists and other LMICs. However, this geographical restriction was necessary to ensure physiotherapists could come to Kamuzu University of Health Sciences for the GLA:D® training course to mitigate potential internet connectivity issues. This evaluation focused on physiotherapists’ perspectives of facilitators and barriers to implementation of the GLA:D® program. Inclusion of other health professionals and patients with OA in future studies may provide additional insights. Future work should not only evaluate clinical outcomes of OMP such as GLA:D® but also consider expanding to examine the role of other health professionals and patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that the GLA:D® training course improved Malawian physiotherapists’ overall knowledge of first line OA treatment and confidence in delivering exercise-therapy and patient education. High use of pain medications and the predominantly biomedical approach for the management of OA in Malawi was also reported reflecting the fact that physiotherapists are rarely the first point of contact for patients in the Malawian context. Costs associated with program set up and delivery, and lack of transportation for patients were reported as key implementation barriers, especially in public health settings. Increasing education and awareness of physiotherapists, other health professionals, and the general public about evidence-based OMP such as GLA:D®, as well as making contextual adaptions to the these programs (e.g., adding African specific content, offering transport) and program structure (e.g., less in-person sessions, use of rehabilitation technicians) may facilitate future implementation of OMP in LMICs.

KEY POINTS

  • Findings

  • - After completing the GLA:D® training, Malawian physiotherapists had improved knowledge and confidence in delivering first line treatment (exercise-therapy and education) for hip and knee OA. They were highly satisfied with the GLA:D® training, and suggested numerous strategies for adapting the training and the program to a LMIC context.

  • - Physiotherapists revealed key multi-level barriers for implementation including culturally entrenched medical management of OA, lack of clinic funding and resources, and low literacy and no transport for patients. However, they also highlighted potential facilitators including increased acceptance of exercise by public, use of rehabilitation technicians, and increasing awareness, education, and collaborations with other health professionals.

  • Implications

  • - This formative evaluation generated valuable knowledge that can inform future implementation of OMP in LMICs. The GLA:D® training and the GLA:D® program should be adapted to account for key systems and person level barriers and leverage the facilitators that are unique to LMICs.

  • Caution

  • - This preliminary study included a small number of physiotherapists practising in one urban region of Malawi. The results should be interpreted with caution and viewed as the first step to implementing a OMP in a LMIC.

SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

Supplementary Table 1: Focus group structure and questions

Supplementary Table 2: Pre and post-GLA:D® training course OA knowledge and management among Malawian physiotherapists (n=11)

Supplementary Table 3: Malawian physiotherapists post-GLA:D® training knowledge of GLA:D® procedures and practices (n=11)

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Author contributions

NSM – Study conceptualisation, Data analysis, Manuscript writing

EJ – Participant recruitment, Data collection, Manuscript writing

EMC – Study conceptualisation, Participant recruitment, Data collection, Manuscript writing

CB – Study conceptualisation, Data collection, Manuscript writing

JLK – Study conceptualisation, Data collection, Manuscript writing

AE– Study conceptualisation, Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing

All the authors provided critical appraisal of the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee – Malawi (REF: P.08/22/3707) and La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee – Australia (REF: HEC23003)

Data sharing statement

Individual, de-identified data collected in the study will be made available following publication, for aims approved in the proposal and upon reasonable request to the corresponding author on Allison.ezzat{at}ubc.ca. These data will be available for 3 years after publication.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Physiotherapy Association of Malawi for their assistance in participant recruitment, the physiotherapists who participated in the study, as well as GLA:D® Australia leadership for their in-kinds support to the study.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Collaborators GBDO. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990-2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol 2023;5(9):e508–e522. DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00163-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Smith E, et al. Global, regional and national burden of osteoarthritis 1990-2017: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(6):819–828. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216515.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Solovieva S, Kontio T, Viikari-Juntura E. Occupation, Physical Workload Factors, and Disability Retirement as a Result of Hip Osteoarthritis in Finland, 2005-2013. J Rheumatol 2018;45(4):555–562. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.170748.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.
    Helminen E, Arokoski J, Selander T, Sinikallio S. Multiple psychological factors predict pain and disability among community-dwelling knee osteoarthritis patients: a five-year prospective study. Clinical Rehabilitation 2020;34(3):404–415. DOI: 10.1177/0269215519900533.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Vina ER, Ran D, Ashbeck EL, Kwoh CK. Natural history of pain and disability among African-Americans and Whites with or at risk for knee osteoarthritis: A longitudinal study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(4):471–479. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.01.020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Eyles JP, Sharma S, Telles RW, Namane M, Hunter DJ, Bowden JL. Implementation of Best-Evidence Osteoarthritis Care: Perspectives on Challenges for, and Opportunities From, Low and Middle-Income Countries. Front Rehabil Sci 2021;2:826765. DOI: 10.3389/fresc.2021.826765.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Dean BJF, Collins J, Thurley N, Rombach I, Bennell K. Exercise therapy with or without other physical therapy interventions versus placebo interventions for osteoarthritis-Systematic review. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2021;3(3):100195. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2021.100195.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Gibbs AJ, Gray B, Wallis JA, et al. Recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2023;31(10):1280–1292. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2023.05.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Skou ST, Pedersen BK, Abbott JH, Patterson B, Barton C. Physical Activity and Exercise Therapy Benefit More Than Just Symptoms and Impairments in People With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):439–447. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2018.7877.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. Total knee replacement and non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: 2-year outcome from two parallel randomized controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(9):1170–1180. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    Uthman OA, van der Windt DA, Jordan JL, et al. Exercise for lower limb osteoarthritis: systematic review incorporating trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;347:f5555. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5555.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of supervised treatment compared to written advice in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of the 2-year outcome from a randomized trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2020;28(7):907–916. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2020.03.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Yahaya I, Wright T, Babatunde OO, et al. Prevalence of osteoarthritis in lower middle-and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Int 2021;41(7):1221–1231. DOI: 10.1007/s00296-021-04838-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Al Saleh J, Almoallim H, Elzorkany B, et al. Assessing the Burden of Osteoarthritis in Africa and the Middle East: A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Open Access Rheumatol 2023;15:23–32. DOI: 10.2147/OARRR.S390778.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Roos EM, Gronne DT, Skou ST, et al. Immediate outcomes following the GLA:D(R) program in Denmark, Canada and Australia. A longitudinal analysis including 28, 370 patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021;29(4):502-506. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2020.12.024.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Roos EM, Barton CJ, Davis AM, et al. GLA:D to have a high-value option for patients with knee and hip arthritis across four continents: Good Life with osteoArthritis from Denmark. Br J Sports Med 2018;52(24):1544–1545. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098904.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    Dell’lsola A, Jonsson T, Nero H, Eek F, Dahlberg L. Factors associated with the outcome of a first-line intervention for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis or both: data from the BOA register. Physical Therapy 2020;100(10):1771–1781.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Dziedzic KS, Healey EL, Porcheret M, et al. Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26(1):43–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.09.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Barton CJ, Kemp JL, Roos EM, et al. Program evaluation of GLA:D(R) Australia: Physiotherapist training outcomes and effectiveness of implementation for people with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2021;3(3):100175. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2021.100175.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Crossley KM, Barton C, Kemp JL, et al. GLAD Australia: 2022 Annual Report. Australia: LaTrobe University, Australia, 2022.
  21. 21.↵
    Dickerson D, Baldwin JA, Belcourt A, et al. Encompassing Cultural Contexts Within Scientific Research Methodologies in the Development of Health Promotion Interventions. Prev Sci 2020;21(Suppl 1):33–42. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-018-0926-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    Hendriks T, Warren MA, Schotanus-Dijkstra M, et al. How WEIRD are positive psychology interventions? A bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials on the science of well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology 2018;14(4):489–501. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2018.1484941.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    Escoffery C, Lebow-Skelley E, Haardoerfer R, et al. A systematic review of adaptations of evidence-based public health interventions globally. Implement Sci 2018;13(1):125. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-018-0815-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Ivankova NV. Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2004;2(1):7–12. DOI: 10.1370/afm.104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig JC. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-itemchecklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007;19(6):349–357. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008;13(2):92–8. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: A noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Research in Nursing & Health 1997;20(2):169–177. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199704)20:2<169::Aid-nur9>3.0.Co;2-i.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci 2022;17(1):75. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Means AR, Kemp CG, Gwayi-Chore MC, et al. Evaluating and optimizing the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) for use in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2020;15(1):17. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-0977-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Dantas LO, Salvini TF, McAlindon TE. Knee osteoarthritis: key treatments and implications for physical therapy. Braz J Phys Ther 2021;25(2):135–146. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.08.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Coetzee M, Giljam-Enright M, Morris LD. Rehabilitation needs in individuals with knee OA in rural Western Cape, South Africa: an exploratory qualitative study. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2020;21:e7. DOI: 10.1017/S1463423620000043.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Ayanniyi O, Egwu RF, Adeniyi AF. Physiotherapy management of knee osteoarthritis in Nigeria-A survey of self-reported treatment preferences. Hong Kong Physiother J 2017;36:1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.hkpj.2016.07.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Skou ST, Roos EM. Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D): evidence-based education and supervised neuromuscular exercise delivered by certified physiotherapists nationwide. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18(1):72. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1439-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    McBride A, Collins C, Osborne B, McVeigh H. Does continuing professional development enhance patient care? A survey of Irish based general practitioners: Successful implementation of mandatory CPD in Irish General Practice. BMC Med Educ 2022;22(1):220. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03292-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Nyelisani M, Makhado L, Luhalima T. Professional Nurses’ Experiences Regarding Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Opportunities at Public Hospitals of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Sage Open 2023;13(4). DOI: 10.1177/21582440231210614.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    Kleinitz P, Sabariego C, Llewellyn G, et al. Integrating rehabilitation into health systems: A comparative study of nine middle-income countries using WHO’s Systematic Assessment of Rehabilitation Situation (STARS). PLoS One 2024;19(2):e0297109. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Kossi O. Training, care delivery, and research in physiotherapy in sub-Saharan French-speaking Africa. S Afr J Physiother 2023;79(1):1932. DOI: 10.4102/sajp.v79i1.1932.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Sharma J, Pavlova M, Groot W. Catastrophic health care expenditure and impoverishment in Bhutan. Health Policy Plan 2023;38(2):228–238. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czac107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Shichman I, Askew N, Habibi A, et al. Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2040-2060. Arthroplast Today 2023;21:101152. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101152.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Jabbal M, Burt J, Clarke J, Moran M, Walmsley P, Jenkins PJ. Trends in incidence and average waiting time for arthroplasty from 1998-2021: an observational study of 282,367 patients from the Scottish arthroplasty project. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2024;106(3):249–255. DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2023.0039.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Australia GD. 2022 Annual Report. LaTrobe University, 2022.
  42. 42.↵
    Hardcastle TC, Oosthuizen G, Clarke D, Lutge E. Trauma, a preventable burden of disease in South Africa: review of the evidence, with a focus on KwaZulu-Natal. South African Health Review 2016;2016:179–89.
  43. 43.
    Coetzee M, Clifford AM, Jordaan JD, Louw QA. Health equity profile of knee replacement patients in the South African public sector: A descriptive study. S Afr J Physiother 2024;80(1):2027. DOI: 10.4102/sajp.v80i1.2027.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Graham SM, Render L, Moffat C, et al. Total Joint Arthroplasty in HIV-Positive Patients in Malawi: Outcomes from the National Arthroplasty Registry of the Malawi Orthopaedic Association. JB JS Open Access 2021;6(4). DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00022.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Barton CJ, Kemp JL, Roos EM, et al. Program evaluation of glad Australia physiotherapist and patient outcomes. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2021;29:S402–S403. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.02.520.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Kania-Richmond A, Jones CA, Martyn J, et al. Implementing a guideline-based education and exercise program for people with knee and hip osteoarthritis-Practical experiences of providers and clinic leaders: A qualitative study. Musculoskeletal Care 2023;21(4):1213–1226. DOI: 10.1002/msc.1801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Hinteregger A, Niedermann K, Wirz M. The feasibility, facilitators, and barriers in the initial implementation phase of’good life with osteoarthritis in Denmark’ (GLA:D(R)) in Switzerland: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2023;23(1):1034. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10023-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Jones CA, Jessiman-Perreault G, Kania-Richmond AA, et al. The effect of geographic location and payor type on provincial-wide delivery of the GLA:D program for hip and knee osteoarthritis in Alberta, Canada. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2023;5(4):100398. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2023.100398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Ezzat AM, Bell E, Kemp JL, et al. “Much better than I thought it was going to be”: Telehealth delivered group-based education and exercise was perceived as acceptable among people with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2022;4(3):100271. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2022.100271.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Ezzat A, Kemp JL, Heerey J, et al. Implementation of the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D((R))) program via telehealth in Australia: A mixed-methods program evaluation. J Telemed Telecare 2023:1357633X231167620. DOI: 10.1177/1357633X231167620.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    Barton C, Pazzinatto M, Perraton Z, et al. Telehealth-delivered group-based education and exercise-therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised clinical trial interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2022;25:S67–S68. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2022.09.081.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Prins GB, Nizeyimana E, Ernstzen DV, Louw QA. Perspectives of patients with osteoarthritis for using digital technology in rehabilitation at a public community centre in the Cape Metropole area: A qualitative study. Digit Health 2024;10:20552076241282230. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241282230.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted February 12, 2025.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Supporting the implementation of Osteoarthritis Management Programs in low-and middle-income settings: Understanding clinician training outcomes alongside perceived program barriers and facilitators in Malawi
Nonhlanhla S. Mkumbuzi, Esther Jiya, Enock M. Chisati, Joanne L. Kemp, Christian Barton, Allison Ezzat
medRxiv 2025.02.07.25321791; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.07.25321791
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area