Journal of Health Services Research & Policy > Volume 13, Supplement 3 > Pp. 47-56

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dieppe, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Essay

MOBILE and the provision of total joint replacement

Paul Dieppe , Diane Dixon, Jeremy Horwood, Beth Pollard, Marie Johnston on behalf of the MOBILE research team

Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Correspondence to: Paul.Dieppe{at}ndos.ox.ac.uk

Modern joint replacements have been available for 45 years, but we still do not have clear indications for these interventions, and we do not know how to optimize the outcome for patients who agree to have them done. The MOBILE programme has been investigating these issues in relation to primary total hip and knee joint replacements, using mixed methods research.

There have been five main strands:

1. Epidemiological investigations to find out who is receiving total hip and knee replacements in the National Health Service (NHS). This has shown that there are extensive variations in different regions of the UK, with inequalities and probable inequities in the provision of these operations;
   
2. Epidemiological work to ascertain the population-based needs for the operations, showing under-provision of knee joint replacements, and a relative reluctance of both patients and GPs to consider knee surgery;
   
3. Quantitative and qualitative research into the views of patients, health care professionals and the public on the indications for, and prioritization of, total hip and knee joint replacements. This has shown lack of agreement within or between professional groups, as well as a mismatch between the views of patients and the public, and those of professionals;
   
4. Theoretical and experimental work on patient-related outcome measures, and the development of new instruments to assess both pain and function in people with osteoarthritis, based on the International Classification of Function, as well as a new integrated model of function;
   
5. Cohort studies of patients undergoing hip or knee joint replacements to find out what the determinants of good and bad outcomes are. These studies have emphasized the huge variation in disease severity at the time of surgery.
   

The challenge now is to use and implement our findings for maximum patient benefit.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?