Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Study Protocol
  • Open access
  • Published:

Singapore KneE osTeoarthritis CoHort (SKETCH): protocol for a multi-centre prospective cohort study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 104 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of global disability. The understanding of the role of psychosocial factors in knee OA outcomes is still evolving particularly in an Asian context. The primary aim of this study is to explore psychosocial factors that prognosticate short and long-term clinical outcomes, productivity, and healthcare utilization in patients with knee OA. Secondary aims are to explore the mediation and directional relationships and the role it plays in predicting the discordance between self-reported measures (SRM), physical-performance measures (PPMs) and objective clinical parameters.

Methods

A multi-centre prospective cohort study of community ambulant knee OA patients seeking treatment in the tertiary healthcare institutions in Singapore will be conducted. Patients with secondary arthritis, significant cognitive impairment, severe medical comorbidities or previous knee arthroplasty will be excluded. Primary clinical outcome measure is the Knee injury and OA Outcome Score-12 (KOOS-12). Baseline characteristics include sociodemographic status, arthritis status including symptom duration and radiographic severity, comorbidities and functional status through Charlson Comorbidities Index (CCI), Barthel Index (BI) and Parker Mobility Score (PMS). Psychosocial variables include social support, kinesiophobia, negative affect, self-efficacy, injustice, chronic illness shame and the built environment. Clinical outcomes include quality of life, physical performance, global assessment, satisfaction and physical activity levels. Productivity and healthcare utilization will be assessed by a modified OA Cost and Consequences Questionnaire (OCC-Q) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI). Variables will be collected at baseline, 4, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Regression, mediation and structural equation modelling will be used for analysis.

Discussion

Results will allow contextualization, identification, and phenotyping of the critical (and potentially modifiable) psychosocial parameters that predict positive clinical outcomes in the OA population to guide optimization and refinement of healthcare and community. This will facilitate: 1. identification of high-risk knee OA subpopulations that will likely experience poor outcomes and 2. formulation of targeted multidisciplinary comprehensive approaches to address these psychosocial factors to optimize non-surgical treatment care, maximize functional outcomes and create more value-based care model for knee OA.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been registered under clinicaltrials.gov registry (Identifier: NCT04942236).

Background

Based on the global burden of disease study, musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders account for the largest cause of disability worldwide [1]. In particular, osteoarthritis (OA) alone is the 3rd most rapidly rising condition associated with disability [2]. 528 million people worldwide suffer from symptomatic and activity-limiting OA affecting quality of life, sleep and mood [3]. Risk factors for knee OA can be divided into modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors [4]. Non-modifiable risk factors include age, gender, ethnicity, genetics and joint-level factors (joint alignment, previous injury). Modifiable risk factors include weight, occupation, sports and joint alignment [5]. These factors work together to influence the progression of disease and its accompanying functional limitations.

Treatment algorithms and disease prognosis for knee OA have traditionally been viewed through a biomedical lens [6]. However, this approach is now considered outdated and missing many important factors [7]. Patients who present with similar radiographic joint abnormalities could have significant differences in how they experience their OA pain with evidence showing a discordance between objective clinical and radiological markers and self-reported pain and disability [8]. Large scale prognostic studies have focused on predominantly biomedical factors but failed to predict pain and functional impairment with high levels of certainties [9]. Pain itself is a complicated phenomenon, manifested and potentially modified by a complex interplay of neuropathic, physiological, psychological, genetic, social and personal factors, each contributing to a multifactorial experience of pain and hence challenges in empirical measurement [10,11,12,13]. These intricacies of pain experiences call for a wider approach toward the understanding and treatment of pain by incorporating a psychosocial perspective.

Mounting evidence has emerged that posits that psychological and social outcomes caused by direct or indirect effects of OA pain can also worsen disease trajectory [14]. The pathway between pain and psychological symptoms can be reciprocal and potentially causational [15,16,17]. Prolonged pain experiences can lead to negative psychological outcomes, and vice versa. A recent longitudinal study found that greater perceived OA pain and dysfunction at baseline is found to be associated with a higher incidence of depression at follow up [18]. Systematic review-level evidence has also identified that anxiety and depression symptoms in patients with OA are associated with poor healthcare outcomes, including increased doctor visits, healthcare utilisation, medication prescription, poor surgical outcomes and post-surgical pain [14]. Luong et al. explored the social factors in OA, highlighting the overall paucity of research in this area with the research mainly focusing on social position (education, income and occupation) and proposed a framework to guide future research [19].

Despite all this, the understanding of the role of psychosocial factors in knee OA outcomes is still early and evolving with a paucity of research involving psychosocial outcomes in patients with knee OA particularly in an Asian context. Existing large prospective cohort studies such as the Multicentre OA Study (MOST), OA Initiative (OAI), and the Chinese Primary Knee OA Progression Cohort (CPKOPC) focused mostly on the biological rather than psychosocial factors [20, 21]. A cohort study to identify critical psychosocial factors that predicts the disease trajectory of this Asian patient population, in closer alignment with patient expressed needs to reduce inequities by focusing on care dimensions beyond the biomechanical lens [22] and guide the optimisation and refinement of existing services.

Study aims

The primary aim is to identify critical psychosocial factors that prognosticate short and long-term clinical outcomes, productivity, and healthcare utilization in patients with knee OA.

The secondary aims are

  1. 1.

    To explore the mediation and directional relationship between the psychosocial factors with clinical outcome, productivity, and healthcare utilization outcome to support the development of a conceptual framework

  2. 2.

    To explore discordance between self-reported measures (SRM), physical-performance measures (PPMs), objective clinical parameters e.g. radiographic severity in knee OA and the extent to which psychosocial factors predicts the extent of discordance

Methodology

Study design

The Singapore KneE OA CoHort (SKETCH) study is a multi-centre, prospective cohort study. The reporting of the study will follow the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [23]. The Prognostic Research Strategy (PROGRESS) framework was used to incorporate best practices for prognostic research as part of this study protocol [24].

Study population and setting

In this first phase, patients with knee OA in Singapore seeking medical care from tertiary hospitals and institutions will be recruited. The recruitment locations of the study will primarily be recruited from the outpatient orthopaedic surgery and physiotherapy departments. A second phase is planned to be conducted among patients within primary care and the community.

Recruitment

Patients who satisfy the inclusion criteria outlined in Table 1 will be recruited. Participants will be identified and recruited with a dual-pronged recruitment strategy. First, research coordinators will conduct a pre-screening of the patients list using the institutions’ appointment and/or medical record systems to identify eligible patients who will be attending the orthopaedic or phsyiotherapy clinic for the day. Second, study site collaborators and their clinical teams, guided by the study inclusion and exclusion criteria will support recruitment by identifying potentially appropriate patients and proactively referring them to the study team. Delegated research coordinators will approach the patients who meet at the outpatient clinics and explain the study’s objectives to the patients. The research coordinator will obtain consent from the patient and offer to administer the questionnaire with the patient at their preferred time and location, or for the patient to complete the questionnaires independently.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

Outcome measurement

Baseline variables

The following baseline measures will be collected. Firstly, the sociodemographic status which will include education level, housing status, employment and income details based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework [25] which summarises a number of social stratification factors that potentially impact health opportunities. Secondly, the arthritis status including the symptom duration and the radiographic severity of knee OA based on the Kellgren-Lawrence Scale [26]. Thirdly, the co-morbidities and functional status including the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) [27], Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living (BI) [28] and Parker Mobility Score (PMS) [29].

Psychosocial variables

The selection of outcome measures was guided by a combination of (I) the themes identified from qualitative work by the study team on local knee OA patient population to identify the potential psychosocial factors that impact knee OA progression [30], (II) a review of international literature, and (III) consultation with local domain experts to ensure local contextualization. The themes identified from the qualitative study (i.e., social support; religion/spirituality; built environment; fear avoidance/kinesiophobia; negative affect, depression/anxiety; and self-image and identity, loss of face) informed the selection of the psychosocial outcomes including social support, religiosity, built environment, fear of movement, etc. [30].

Validated psychosocial questionnaires previously used in OA research (e.g., brief fear of movement (BFOM) [31] and Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES) [32], Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) [33], Chronic pain acceptance questionnaire (CPAQ) will be used for this study. Other outcome measures that have not been administered or validated in the OA population, such as religiosity and built environment, have been adapted from similar questionnaires and refined further by the study team in conjunction with local subject domain experts, contextualizing the questions to the local context to ensure content validity. The set of outcome measures was pilot tested to check for comprehensibility of the items.

Clinical, productivity and healthcare utilization outcomes

Recommendations set out by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) for domains of interest pertaining to non-surgical management of OA were adopted (i.e., pain, physical function, activity level, global assessment, and quality of life, etc.) [34, 35] for the clinical outcomes. The primary outcome will be Knee OA and Outcomes Score-12 (KOOS-12) [36]. The KOOS score has previously been validated in Singapore [37]. Other domains include quality of life, global assessment and symptom satisfaction (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2 Overview of outcome measures
Full size table
Table 3 Outcome measures
Full size table

The choice of PPMs was based on the recommended OARSI performance test for functional testing in OA [35]. Gait speed timed up-and-go, 4-stair climb test and 30-s chair stand were chosen to encompass the key domains of functional activities from sit-to-stand, walking short distances, stair negotiation and ambulatory transitions. The UCLA activity score is a validated score that is recommended for use in patients with hip or knee OA [38].

The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommends the use of a societal perspective to ensure that potentially important indirect costs such as productivity and caregiver cost would not be omitted [39]. Cost and healthcare utilization data will be collected via hospital administrative databases and patient-reported questionnaires to estimate direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect costs. Indirect costs include health-related productivity loss due to knee OA [40] from absenteeism and presenteeism, measured with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) [41]. The scope of the cost data collection was based on the validated OA Cost and Consequences Questionnaire (OCC-Q) [42] and adapted to the Singapore context to ensure that all relevant sources of cost were collected.

Outcome measures timepoints

Upon baseline outcome measure taking, participants will be followed up at 4 months, 12 months, and annually after that. To reduce respondent fatigue and keep questionnaire burden to the minimum, psychosocial variables will be administered in two phases (Table 2) with a core set of outcome measures collected at all time points. In addition, certain psychosocial variables eg. built environment, that are not anticipated to change significantly over time will only be taken at baseline (Table 4).

Table 4 Data collection at different time points
Full size table

Sample size calculation

Sample size was estimated using G*Power 3.1.9.2. With a small effect size of 0.05, 0.05 type I error, 0.95 power of study and 10 predictive factors to be included into the model, the study will need to recruit 262 subjects. The final estimated sample size will be 420 cases after considering 20% attrition rate at each time point [(262 × 0.2) × 3 + 262] up to 2 years. Recruitment will be continued through the entire period to maximize statistical power.

Statistical analysis plan

Data will be explored, cleaned and analysedusing STATA version 16.0 [56]. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants. The distribution of the continuous data will be assessed using skewness, kurtosis as well as histogram. Continuous data will be presented as mean and standard deviation if the data is normally distributed, otherwise median and interquartile range. Categorical variables will be presented as frequency and percentage.

Prognostic factors that influence the rehabilitation outcomes

Linear regression modelling will be used to investigate the factors that influence the knee function of the patients. Simple linear regression will be used to explore the variables which significantly predict the outcome, and stepwise variable selection method will be used to build the multivariable models. Multicollinearity and interaction terms of the final model will be checked, and heteroscedasticity. The model fit will be checked and assessed using Hosmer-Leme show goodness of fit test. In secondary analysis, mixed effect generalized linear models will be used to explore the changes in outcomes across time as well as the factors predicting the outcome of interest. Mediation analyses will also be conducted to explore the potential mediating psychosocial factors between predictors with clinical outcomes. Structural equation modelling (SEM) cross lagged analysis, an analytical strategy used to describe reciprocal relationships or directional influences, between variables over time, will be used to estimate the directional effects of various psychosocial factors at different time points. Statistical significance will be denoted as p < 0.05.

Handling of missing data

The missing data percentage will be explored and addressed when appropriate. Logistic regression will be used to ascertain the missing data mechanism and the association between the missingness and baseline covariates. Where appropriate, multiple imputation with predictive mean matching (PMM) will be used to predict and impute the missing continuous data based on the observed baseline covariates at each follow-up. On the other hand, the imputation of binary outcomes will be done using the ‘miimputelogit’ package from STATA [57].

Cohort retention strategies

Long questionnaires and repeated follow ups may also influence attrition rates. Appropriate retention strategies will be applied to support participant retention [58]. This study will take on a multi-pronged approach in retaining participants and reducing attrition rates across the follow up timepoints. First, the outcome assessor of the participants will be kept consistent such that each participant will only be liaising with one member of the study team where a rapport has been established. Second, the questionnaire administration will adopt a barrier reducing approach in which participants will have the choice to complete the questionnaire on their own via an online digital secure form, at a time and place of their convenience or through the use of a hardcopy form. Third, through the provision of a grocery voucher after completion of the questionnaire at every timepoint, it is hoped that participants will feel incentivized to stay in the study throughout the study period.

Data collection and storage

The collected data will be monitored by the study team. Data quality measures include queries to identify outliers and missing data analysis will be performed. A unique identifier will be assigned to each participant after enrolment to ensure patient confidentiality. The data collected will be stored on the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCAP) system, a secure web application widely used for clinical data management in research.

Discussion and conclusion

The longitudinal data of psychosocial outcomes in patients with knee OA collected in this study will provide clinicians, researchers and policymakers with contextualised knowledge to inform more data-driven care and to create more value-based models of care for knee OA patients. Studying psychosocial factors in the context of the Singapore and the broader Asian culture is important because there are likely to be differences in the psychosocial characteristics and presentation in the local population compared to studies in other countries. A review by Sathiyamoorthy et al. of the cultural factors influencing OA care in Asian communities highlighted the key role that cultural factors play in the uptake of OA management practices among Asians and posited that greater awareness of these cultural factors may improve overall management of OA among Asian patients [59]. Much work is needed to contextualize, identify and phenotype the critical (and potentially modifiable) psychosocial parameters that aid positive clinical outcomes in the OA population to guide optimization and refinement of healthcare and community.

“Psychosocial phenotyping” is an increasingly powerful tool to optimize personalized self-management interventions for people with chronic diseases that have been shown to be effective in many other conditions [60]. Psychosocial phenotyping has already been done in local studies in other contexts and diseases such as cancer [61, 62], eye diseases [63], and frailty [64], where findings could help guide targeted interventions and inform policies. Psychosocial phenotyping through the identification of the key psychosocial predictive factors will allow for the practice of “Precision Medicine”. Within knee OA, efforts have been made to phenotype patients based on a host of clinical variables [65, 66] with some studies focusing specifically on psychological factors [67, 68]. Through understanding the directional and mediation relationships between the various psychosocial factors and its association with established self-reported measures (SRM), physical-performance measures (PPMs), objective clinical parameters such as radiographic severity, this will allow us to untangle the complex relationships between the various measures that have been used in knee OA and develop conceptual frameworks to support further research.

Results from this study can be used in several ways. Firstly, it can help raise awareness among clinicians who manage patients with knee OA to identify high risk knee OA subpopulations that will likely experience poor outcomes based on pre-existing factors. This would allow them to address these factors and potentially formulate targeted approaches to address these psychosocial factors to optimize non-surgical treatment care, maximize functional outcomes and reducing/delaying the need for expensive surgery. Secondly, the results will inform the development of holistic biopsychosocial integrated multidisciplinary care models that specifically targets high-risk population groups to intervene on prognostic psychosocial factors to optimize outcomes. Results can also be used to augment existing clinical practice guidelines and promote cross-disciplinary training and collaboration to further support integrated care models.

For this study, recruitment will primarily be centred around the tertiary hospitals as patients presenting to the hospital are more likely to be experiencing more symptomatic and debilitating knee OA with the corresponding associated psychosocial factors. This will allow for relationships between psychosocial factors and outcomes to be more clearly established through a well-defined hospital-based cohort. In the next phase upon completion of this study, there are plans for subsequent phases of the cohort study to be expanded further downstream to primary care and the community and to explore other psychosocial factors that emerge over time as part of the larger effort to develop a comprehensive biopsychosocial understanding of knee OA.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

OA:

Osteoarthritis

SRM:

Self-reported measures

PPM:

Physical-performance measures

KOOS-12:

Knee injury and OA Outcome Score-12

CCI:

Charlson Comorbidities Index

BI:

Barthel Index

PMS:

Parker Mobility Score

OCC-Q:

OA Cost and Consequences Questionnaire

WPAI:

Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire

MSK:

Musculoskeletal

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

PROGRESS:

Prognostic Research Strategy

BFOM:

Brief fear of movement

ASES:

Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale

MSPSS:

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

CPAQ:

Chronic pain acceptance questionnaire

OARSI:

Osteoarthritis Research Society International

TUG:

Time-up-and-Go

STS:

Sit-to-stand

OA-QI:

Osteoarthritis Quality Indicator

PHQ-4:

Patient Health Questionnaire-4

GPE:

Global Perceived Effect

PASS:

Patient Acceptable Symptom Scale

CISS:

Chronic illness-related shame score

IPAQ:

International Physical Activity Questionnaire

REDCAP:

Research Electronic Data Capture

NYHA:

New York Heart Association

References

  1. Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Nolte S, Ackerman I, Fransen M, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(7):1323–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. March L, Cross M, Lo C, Arden N, Gates L, Leyland K, et al. Osteoarthritis: a serious disease. OARSI Org. 2016. https://oarsi.org/oarsi-white-paper-oa-serious-disease.

  3. Long H, Liu Q, Yin H, Wang K, Diao N, Zhang Y, et al. Prevalence trends of site-specific osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2019: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(7):1172–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bennell KL, Hunter DJ, Hinman RS. Management of osteoarthritis of the knee. BMJ. 2012;30(345):e4934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Silverwood V, Blagojevic-Bucknall M, Jinks C, Jordan JL, Protheroe J, Jordan KP. Current evidence on risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(4):507–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Leung YY, Pua YH, Thumboo J. A Perspective on Osteoarthritis Research in Singapore. Proc Singap Healthc. 2013;22(1):31–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartley EJ, Palit S, Staud R. Predictors of osteoarthritis pain: the importance of resilience. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017;19(9):57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Finan PH, Buenaver LF, Bounds SC, Hussain S, Park RJ, Haque UJ, et al. Discordance between pain and radiographic severity in knee osteoarthritis: findings from quantitative sensory testing of central sensitization. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(2):363–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baumbach L, List M, Grønne DT, Skou ST, Roos EM, Baumbach L, et al. Individualized predictions of changes in knee pain, quality of life and walking speed following patient education and exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis - a prognostic model study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2020;28(9):1191–201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gwilym SE, Pollard TCB, Carr AJ. Understanding pain in osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90-B(3):280–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diatchenko L, Nackley AG, Slade GD, Fillingim RB, Maixner W. Idiopathic pain disorders–pathways of vulnerability. Pain. 2006;123(3):226–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baker SL, Kirsch I. Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(3):504–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bates MS, Edwards WT, Anderson KO. Ethnocultural influences on variation in chronic pain perception. Pain. 1993;52(1):101–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma A, Kudesia P, Shi Q, Gandhi R. Anxiety and depression in patients with osteoarthritis: impact and management challenges. Open Access Rheumatol Res Rev. 2016;31(8):103–13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kroenke K, Wu J, Bair MJ, Krebs EE, Damush TM, Tu W. Reciprocal relationship between pain and depression: a 12-month longitudinal analysis in primary care. J Pain. 2011;12(9):964–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. James RJE, Walsh DA, Ferguson E. General and disease-specific pain trajectories as predictors of social and political outcomes in arthritis and cancer. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. James RJE, Ferguson E. The dynamic relationship between pain, depression and cognitive function in a sample of newly diagnosed arthritic adults: a cross-lagged panel model. Psychol Med. 2020;50(10):1663–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zheng S, Tu L, Cicuttini F, Zhu Z, Han W, Antony B, et al. Depression in patients with knee osteoarthritis: risk factors and associations with joint symptoms. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Luong MLN, Cleveland RJ, Nyrop KA, Callahan LF. Social determinants and osteoarthritis outcomes. Aging Health. 2012;8(4):413–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Segal NA, Nevitt MC, Gross KD, Hietpas J, Glass NA, Lewis CE, et al. The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST): Opportunities for Rehabilitation Research. PM R. 2013;5(8):https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.04.014.

  21. Eckstein F, Wirth W, Nevitt MC. Recent advances in osteoarthritis imaging—the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012;8(10):622–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Slater H, Jordan JE, O’Sullivan PB, Schütze R, Goucke R, Chua J, et al. ‘Listen to me, learn from me’: a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care. Pain. 2022;163(11):e1145–e1163.

  23. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hemingway H, Croft P, Perel P, Hayden JA, Abrams K, Timmis A, et al. Prognosis research strategy (PROGRESS) 1: a framework for researching clinical outcomes. BMJ. 2013;5(346):e5595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Parker MJ, Palmer CR. A new mobility score for predicting mortality after hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(5):797–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang SY, Woon EYS, Griva K, Tan BY. A Qualitative Study of Psychosocial Factors in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Insights Learned From an Asian Population. Clin Orthop. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002526.

  31. Thoma LM, Wolf K, Harris L, Best T, Flanigan D, Schmitt L. Understanding fear of movement and reinjury with the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (TSK) in individuals with musculoskeletal knee pathology: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(SUPPL. 2):A333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brand E, Nyland J, Henzman C, McGinnis M. Arthritis self-efficacy scale scores in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing arthritis self-management education with or without exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(12):895–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ilori T, Ladipo MM, Ogunbode AM, Obimakinde AM. Knee osteoarthritis and perceived social support amongst patients in a family medicine clinic. South Afr Fam Pract. 2016;58(6):202–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, Arden NK, Bennell K, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(11):1578–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, Abbott JH, Stratford P, Davis AM, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(8):1042–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gandek B, Roos EM, Franklin PD, Ware JE. A 12-item short form of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12): tests of reliability, validity and responsiveness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(5):762–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leung YY, Ma S, Noviani M, Wong SBS, Lee CM, Soh IAL, et al. Validation of screening questionnaires for evaluation of knee osteoarthritis prevalence in the general population of Singapore. Int J Rheum Dis. 2018;21(3):629–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Terwee CB, Bouwmeester W, van Elsland SL, de Vet HC, Dekker J. Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(6):620–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rice DP. Estimating the cost of illness. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1967;57(3):424–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5):353–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pinto D, Robertson MC, Hansen P, Abbott JH. Good agreement between questionnaire and administrative databases for health care use and costs in patients with osteoarthritis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Luo N, Wang P, Thumboo J, Lim YW, Vrijhoef HJM. Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):495–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Krebs EE, Lorenz KA, Bair MJ, Damush TM, Wu J, Sutherland JM, et al. Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):733–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Poquet N, Lin C. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). J Physiother. 2016;62(1):52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scott W, McCracken LM. Patients’ impression of change following treatment for chronic pain: global, specific, a single dimension, or many? J Pain. 2015;16(6):518–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dougados M, Moore A, Yu S, Gitton X. Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state in a pooled analysis of two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluating lumiracoxib and celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2007;9(1):R11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Østerås N, Garratt A, Grotle M, Natvig B, Kjeken I, Kvien TK, et al. Patient-reported quality of care for osteoarthritis: development and testing of the osteoarthritis quality indicator questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65(7):1043–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shelby RA, Somers TJ, Keefe FJ, DeVellis BM, Patterson C, Renner JB, et al. Brief fear of movement scale for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(6):862–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brady TJ. Measures of self-efficacy: Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES), Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale-8 Item (ASES-8), Children’s Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (CASE), Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSES), Parent’s Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (PASE), and Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (RASE). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(Suppl 11):S473-485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vowles KE, Kruger ES, Bailey RW, Sowden G, Ashworth J, Hickman J, et al. Initial evaluation of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire - 2. Eur J Pain Lond Engl. 2020;24(10):2027–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yakobov E. Validation of the Injustice Experiences Questionnaire Adapted for Use with Patients with Severe Osteoarthritis of the Knee. J Arthritis. 2014 [cited 2022 Nov 25];03(02). Available from: http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/validation-of-the-injustice-experiences-questionnaire-adapted-for-use-with-patients-with-severe-osteoarthritis-of-the-knee-2167-7921.1000130.php?aid=26697

  53. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Trindade IA, Ferreira C, Pinto-Gouveia J. Chronic illness-related shame: development of a new scale and novel approach for ibd patients’ depressive symptomatology. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017;24(1):255–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Alexander A, Bergman P, Hagströmer M, Sjöström M. IPAQ environmental module; reliability testing. J Public Health. 2006;14(2):76–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019.

  57. Little RJA. Missing-data adjustments in large surveys. J Bus Econ Stat. 1988;6(3):287–96.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Teague S, Youssef GJ, Macdonald JA, Sciberras E, Shatte A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, et al. Retention strategies in longitudinal cohort studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sathiyamoorthy T, Ali SA, Kloseck M. Cultural factors influencing osteoarthritis care in asian communities: a review of the evidence. J Community Health. 2018;43(4):816–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kim MT, Radhakrishnan K, Heitkemper EM, Choi E, Burgermaster M. Psychosocial phenotyping as a personalization strategy for chronic disease self-management interventions. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(3):1617–35.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Liu J, Lam K, Mahendran R. Psychosocial concerns predict longitudinal trajectories of distress in newly diagnosed cancer patients. Singapore Med J. 2022;63(3):140–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lam KFY, Lim HA, Kua EH, Griva K, Mahendran R. Mindfulness and cancer patients’ emotional states: a latent profile analysis among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Mindfulness. 2018;9(2):521–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Gupta P, Man REK, Fenwick EK, Aravindhan A, Gan AT, Thakur S, et al. Rationale and Methodology of The PopulatION HEalth and Eye Disease PRofile in Elderly Singaporeans Study [PIONEER]. Aging Dis. 2020;11(6):1444–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Teo N, Yeo PS, Gao Q, Nyunt MSZ, Foo JJ, Wee SL, et al. A bio-psycho-social approach for frailty amongst Singaporean Chinese community-dwelling older adults – evidence from the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Deveza LA, Melo L, Yamato TP, Mills K, Ravi V, Hunter DJ. Knee osteoarthritis phenotypes and their relevance for outcomes: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25(12):1926–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Deveza LA, Nelson AE, Loeser RF. Phenotypes of osteoarthritis: current state and future implications. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019;37 Suppl 120(5):64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lentz TA, George SZ, Manickas-Hill O, Malay MR, O’Donnell J, Jayakumar P, et al. What general and pain-associated psychological distress phenotypes exist among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis? Clin Orthop. 2020;478(12):2768–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Pan F, Tian J, Cicuttini F, Jones G, Aitken D. Differentiating knee pain phenotypes in older adults: a prospective cohort study. Rheumatol Oxf Engl. 2019;58(2):274–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

NA.

Funding

NHG Population Health Grant (PHG20/S/T/1/4). The funding body was not involved in the study design.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Bryan Yijia Tan and Zack Zhong Sheng Goh joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Woodlands Health, Singapore, Singapore

    Bryan Yijia Tan, Zack Zhong Sheng Goh & Chien Joo Lim

  2. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Bryan Yijia Tan & Josip Car

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Woodlands Health, National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Singapore

    Bryan Yijia Tan

  4. Health Services Outcome Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Singapore

    Michelle Jessica Pereira

  5. Psychology Service, Woodlands Health, Singapore, Singapore

    Su-Yin Yang

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Kelvin Guoping Tan

  7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Alvin Chin Kwong Tan

  8. Rehabilitation Research Institute of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Phyllis Liang

  9. Centre for Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research, Department of Surgical Sciences, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    J. Haxby Abbott

  10. Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin School of Allied Health and Curtin enAble Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Andrew M. Briggs

  11. Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, Kolling Institute, University of Sydney and Rheumatology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    David J. Hunter

  12. Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense M, Denmark

    Soren T. Skou

  13. The Research Unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark

    Soren T. Skou

  14. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Julian Thumboo

  15. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore

    Julian Thumboo

Authors
  1. Bryan Yijia Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zack Zhong Sheng Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chien Joo Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Jessica Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Su-Yin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kelvin Guoping Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alvin Chin Kwong Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Phyllis Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J. Haxby Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Andrew M. Briggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David J. Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Soren T. Skou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Julian Thumboo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Josip Car
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BYT was the lead investigator. All the authors were involved in the study methodology design and the preparation of the manuscript and have approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan Yijia Tan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB) Singapore (Reference number: WHC/2020–00076). The study has also been registered under clinical trials registry (Identifier: NCT04942236). Written consent will be obtained from the study participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, B.Y., Goh, Z.Z.S., Lim, C.J. et al. Singapore KneE osTeoarthritis CoHort (SKETCH): protocol for a multi-centre prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06207-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06207-1

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us