The impact of an illness perception conversation on open-label placebo response in knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of an illness perception conversation (IPC), relative to a research participation conversation (RPC), on 2-week changes in knee pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: This was a randomised single-blind trial. Patients were randomised to two matched conversations. An IP conversation concerning the participant's knee pain-related illness perception (IP) or an RPC concerning the participant's motivation for participating in research. Both conversations were followed by an open-label intraarticular saline injection in the most symptomatic knee. The primary outcome was change in knee pain from baseline to 2 weeks follow-up on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Key secondary outcomes included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales: Activities of daily living (ADL) and Quality of life (QoL). Main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population using repeated measures mixed effects linear models. RESULTS: 103 patients were randomised to the IPC group (n = 52) and the RPC group (n = 51). VAS knee pain scores changed statistically significantly from baseline to end of treatment in both groups, -13.7 (standard error [SE]: 3.2) in the IPC group and -13.0 (SE: 3.1) in the RPC group with an adjusted between-group difference of -0.7 (95% CI: -8.3 to 6.9; P = 0.85). Likewise, no group differences were seen in KOOS ADL and KOOS QoL. CONCLUSION: A conversation concerning knee pain-related IP did not augment the pain-relieving effect of an open-label placebo injection when compared to a similar control conversation concerning motivations for participating in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05225480.

Preferences for Follow-Up Procedures among Patients Lost to Follow-Up after Smoking Cessation Intervention among Therapists-An Interview Study.

Achieving high follow-up rates after smoking cessation interventions (SCIs) is a general challenge. The aim of this study was to identify preferences among patients and therapists for improving follow-up rates and to assess smoking status at 6 months among patients lost to follow-up. From the Danish STOPbase for Tobacco and Nicotine, which collects data on SCI across health care, 20 representative patients lost to follow-up by routine procedures were identified together with 11 therapists. All participated in individual semi-structured phone interviews, which for patients also included 6-month smoking status. Deductive and inductive analyses were performed. Four themes emerged from the analyses with several subthemes, all regarding contacts. Both patients and therapists preferred to intensify the follow-up process by boosting it with additional attempts and using voice messages, e-mail and/or SMS, calling at specified times of the day and avoiding calls from unknown numbers. In addition, some patients mentioned that they were busy or were not carrying their mobile devices at the time of a call as a barrier. Some therapists mentioned that barriers could include an expectation of relapse, but also a poor mental state, the time of day and patient fear of public systems. Among the patients originally lost to follow-up, 35% (95% CI 16%-59%) experienced continuous smoking cessation for 6 months, and the overall national rate was 22% (21.6-23.3%). In conclusion, both patients and therapists preferred intensified follow-up. The 6-month smoking status for patients lost to follow-up seemed to be similar to that of the routinely followed-up patients. These findings will be examined experimentally in a larger study.