Can the provision of information to patients with osteoarthritis improve functional status?. A randomized, controlled trial
Abstract
After we assessed the functional status of 439 patients with osteoarthritis, we randomly assigned them to 1 of 3 intervention groups or to a control group. The interventions consisted of providing information, and differed only in the method of delivery: by phone, in person at the clinic, or both. Physical health improved (P = 0.02), pain was reduced (P = 0.02), and psychological health improved marginally (P = 0.10) in patients contacted by phone compared with those not contacted by phone. In those contacted only at the clinic, physical health worsened (P = 0.02), but neither pain (P = 0.80) nor psychological health (P = 0.90) differed from the values in patients not contacted at the clinic. We conclude that telephone contact is a useful intervention that can enhance the functional status of patients with osteoarthritis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In that randomized study, at 1 year, patients receiving the telephone-based intervention exhibited significant improvements in physical disability and pain and a trend toward improvement in psychological disability, whereas patients receiving the office-based intervention showed none of these improvements.
“Data analyses showed that at 1 year, patients receiving the telephone-based intervention exhibited significant improvements in physical disability and pain and a trend toward improvement in psychological disability, whereas patients receiving the office-based intervention showed none of these improvements.”
From Psychological aspects of persistent pain: Current state of the science (2004) · cites this paper as [149]
A subsequent randomized study compared the efficacy of delivering a similar intervention by telephone versus in an office setting.
“A subsequent randomized study compared the efficacy of delivering a similar intervention by telephone versus in an office setting.”
From Psychological aspects of persistent pain: Current state of the science (2004) · cites this paper as [149]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 143
- Authors
- Weinberger, M., Tierney, W. M., Booher, P., & Katz, B. P.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weinberger, Morris
- ORCID
- Tierney, William M.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1989-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1577-1583
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2107282515
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Arthritis & Rheumatism (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p60am020582-09)
- National Institute on Aging (AG 00029, AG05468)
- Rocky Mountain Research Station
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- osteoarthritis, patient information, functional status, telephone contact, patient education, pain, physical health, mental health
- MeSH terms
- Consumer Behavior, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Pain, Patient Education as Topic, Statistics as Topic, Telephone, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
