Treatment Beliefs Underlying Intended Treatment Choices in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis
Patients’ beliefs about treatment modalities for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) will underlie their treatment choices. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, it is hypothesized that patients’ beliefs, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control guide their treatment choices. Also, symptom severity and one’s inherent tendency to approach or avoid situations are assumed to play a role. The objective of this study was to test whether these variables were associated with intended treatment choices in knee and hip OA.
Patients with knee and hip OA were randomly selected from hospital patient records. They completed the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire to assess positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activities, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections, and arthroplasty. Other measures were intention, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control (ASES), symptom severity (WOMAC), and the person’s general tendency to approach or avoid situations (RR/BIS scales). Three models were tested using path analyses to examine the hypothesized associations.
Participants were 289 patients. Positive treatment beliefs and subjective norm were consistently associated with intended treatment choice across all treatment modalities. Negative treatment beliefs were associated with intended treatment choices for pain medication and arthroplasty. Other associations were not significant.
This is the first study testing the Theory of Planned Behavior in the context of treatment choices in OA. Findings suggest that foremost positive beliefs about treatment modalities and the norms of one’s social environment guide a specific treatment choice. Unexpectedly, symptom severity was not related to intended treatment choices.
KeywordsBeliefs Decision-making Hip Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All participants provided informed consent.
- 4.McHugh GA, Luker KA, Campbell M, Kay PR, Silman AJ: A longitudinal study exploring pain control, treatment and service provision for individuals with end-stage lower limb osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007; 46: 631–637.Google Scholar
- 5.Smink AJ, van den Ende CH, Vliet Vlieland TP, Swierstra BA, Kortland JH, Bijlsma JW, et al. “Beating osteoARThritis”: development of a stepped care strategy to optimize utilization and timing of non-surgical treatment modalities for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30:1623–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Selten EM, Vriezekolk JE, Geenen R, Van der Laan WH, van der Meulen-Dilling RG, Nijhof MW et al.: Reasons for treatment choices in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a qualitative study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 1260–1267.Google Scholar
- 17.Smink AJ, Dekker J, Vliet Vlieland TP, Swierstra BA, Kortland JH, Bijlsma JW et al.: Health care use of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee after implementation of a stepped-care strategy: an observational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014; 66: 817–827.Google Scholar
- 20.Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29:1039–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ajzen I. Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations. 2002.Google Scholar
- 24.Francis J, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw JM, Foy R et al.. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: a manual for health services researchers. Edited by Centre for Health Services Research. 2004. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
- 28.Knowles SR, Nelson EA, Castle DJ, Salzberg MR, Choong PF, Dowsey MM: Using the common sense model of illness to examine interrelationships between symptom severity and health outcomes in end-stage osteoarthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016.Google Scholar
- 29.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Franken IHA, Muris P, Rassin E. Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Jounral of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2005;27Google Scholar
- 33.Acock AC. Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata, revised edition 2013 edn. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2013.Google Scholar
- 34.Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6:53–60.Google Scholar
- 41.Ferreira G, Pereira MG. Physical activity: the importance of the extended theory of planned behavior, in type 2 diabetes patients. J Health Psychol. 2016;Google Scholar
- 43.Mitchell HL, Carr AJ, Scott DL: The management of knee pain in primary care: factors associated with consulting the GP and referrals to secondary care.Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006; 45: 771–776.Google Scholar