Comparing an eHealth Program (My Hip Journey) With Standard Care for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Rosemary Saunders, Karla Seaman, Laura Emery and 8 others
PMID 33656449WHAT IT FOUND
Adding My Hip Journey to standard care did not add benefit for hip function, quality of life, or self-efficacy at 6 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months.
Standard care included a booklet, a preoperative session, and a phone call. Both groups improved after surgery.
Key findings
01No significant differences were found between groups in changes in HOOS scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months after surgery.
02No significant differences were found between groups in changes in EQ-5D-5L quality of life scores at any time point.
03Both groups improved after surgery across all 5 HOOS domains and continued improving at 3 and 6 months.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was done in one private hospital in Western Australia, so results may not apply to other hospitals or populations. Participants needed English, a web-based device, and three weeks before surgery, and the study may have selected people comfortable with technology. Blinding of participants and health care team was not possible. Loss to follow-up occurred, with 33 of 50 intervention and 39 of 49 control participants remaining at 6 months. Baseline HOOS pain and activities of daily living scores differed significantly between groups. The eHealth program was added to an enhanced recovery program that already included a booklet, a face-to-face preoperative session, and a post-discharge phone call, so it was not tested as a stand-alone intervention.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that My Hip Journey improves recovery after total hip replacement. It was added to standard care, and the primary HOOS outcome and secondary quality of life outcomes showed no significant difference between groups.