BMJ Open (May 2022)

Randomised controlled trial of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity following hip and knee replacement: the PEP-TALK trial

  • ,
  • Michael Dunn,
  • Beth Fordham,
  • Karen Barker,
  • Scott Parsons,
  • Susan Dutton,
  • Sarah Lamb,
  • Jamila Kassam,
  • Toby O Smith,
  • Iain McNamara,
  • Alexander Ooms,
  • Caroline Hing,
  • Steve Algar,
  • Zara Hansen,
  • Sonny Driver,
  • Peter Penny,
  • Celia Woodhouse,
  • Tracey Potter,
  • Helena Daniell,
  • Alex Herring,
  • Yan Cunningham,
  • Irrum Afzal,
  • Maninderpal Matharu,
  • Tamsin Hughes,
  • Erin Hannink,
  • Michelle Moynihan,
  • Angela Garrett,
  • Ian Smith,
  • Vicki Barber,
  • Malcolm Hart,
  • MayEe Png,
  • Dawn Lockey

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061373
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 5

Abstract

Read online

Objective To test the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR).Design Multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, open, randomised controlled, superiority trial.Setting National Health Service providers in nine English hospitals.Participants 224 individuals aged ≥18 years, undergoing a primary THR or TKR deemed ‘moderately inactive’ or ‘inactive’.Intervention Participants received either six, 30 min, weekly, group-based exercise sessions (usual care) or the same six weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30 min cognitive behaviour discussion group aimed at challenging barriers to physical inactivity following surgery (experimental).Randomisation and blinding Initial 75 participants were randomised 1:1 before changing the allocation ratio to 2:1 (experimental:usual care). Allocation was based on minimisation, stratifying on comorbidities, operation type and hospital. There was no blinding.Main outcome measures Primary: University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary: 6 and 12-month assessed function, pain, self-efficacy, kinesiophobia, psychological distress and quality of life.Results Of the 1254 participants assessed for eligibility, 224 were included (139 experimental: 85 usual care). Mean age was 68.4 years (SD: 8.7), 63% were women, 52% underwent TKR. There was no between-group difference in UCLA score (mean difference: −0.03 (95% CI −0.52 to 0.45, p=0.89)). There were no differences observed in any of the secondary outcomes at 6 or 12 months. There were no important adverse events in either group. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the reduced intended sample size (target 260) and reduced intervention compliance.Conclusions There is no evidence to suggest attending usual care physiotherapy sessions plus a group-based behaviour change intervention differs to attending usual care physiotherapy alone. As the trial could not reach its intended sample size, nor a proportion of participants receive their intended rehabilitation, this should be interpreted with caution.Trial registration number ISRCTN29770908.