Feasibility of Choose to Move Replacement Ready

NCT07069179 | Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: H24-03805
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 60
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Choose to Move (CTM) is a 3-month, choice-based health-promoting program for low active older adults being scaled-up across British Columbia (BC), Canada. Recently, the investigators adapted CTM for the \>14000 people in BC who are on surgical waitlists for total knee replacement or total hip replacement (TKR/THR) for osteoarthritis (OA). The primary goal of this observational study is to learn if the adapted program, Choose to Move Replacement Ready (CTM-RR), is feasible to deliver to people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are on surgical waitlists for TKR/THR. Participants who enrol in CTM-RR will answer online survey questions about the program and about their physical activity, mobility, pain, function, quality of life, willingness to undergo surgery, overall perception of their joint condition, psychosocial health, self-efficacy, social isolation, loneliness, and sedentary time. CTM-RR activity coaches will also answer online survey questions about the program. CTM-RR participants, activity coaches, and referral partners will also participate in interviews about the program.

Conditions

Social Isolation or Loneliness; Pain; Implementation Science; Physical Inactivity; Sedentary Behaviors; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Total Knee Arthroplasty; Total Hip Arthroplasty; Mobility Limitation

Keywords

Osteoarthritis; Implementation science; Social isolation; Physical activity; Mobility; Loneliness; Pain; Joint replacement; Feasibility; Acceptability; Fidelity

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (6)

• Implementation Outcome: Recruitment

  Obtained from program records. Proportion of people who attend the program information session, are eligible, and enrol in the program. Feasibility Target: Enrol 50% of people attending the program information session who are eligible to participate to the program.

  baseline

• Implementation Outcome: Retention

  Obtained from evaluation records. Proportion of participants who consent to the evaluation who complete each follow-up assessment. Feasibility target: A minimum of 80% of participants who consented to the evaluation (and are in the pre-operative period) completing each follow-up assessment.

  baseline, 3, 6 months

• Implementation Outcome: Dose delivered

  Obtained from post-program survey. Proportion of required intervention components (group meetings and one-on-one consultations) delivered by activity coaches. Feasibility target: Activity coaches delivering 90% of required intervention components (group meetings and one-on-one consultations).

  3 months

• Implementation Outcome: Dose received

  Obtained from post-program survey. Proportion of participants who consent to the evaluation, attending required intervention components (group meetings and one-on-one consultation) Feasibility target: Participants who consent to the evaluation attending 6 out of 9 (\>60%) of required intervention components (group meetings and one-on-one consultation)

  3 months

• Implementation Outcome: Fidelity (Proportion of participants who adhered to prescribed exercise)

  Obtained from post-program survey. Measures adherence to prescribed frequency, intensity, duration, and type of exercises performed. 80% of participants adhered to all of the following criteria: * on average, frequency= two sessions per week or greater * on average, intensity= 7 out of 10 rating of perceived exertion or greater * on average, duration= 20 minutes or greater * on average, exercises were completed as prescribed without omission or substitution of prescribed exercises

  3 months

• Adverse events: Number of adverse events

  Obtained from post-program survey. Number of adverse events related to Choose to Move: Replacement Ready that required medical treatment and/or lasted two or more days.

  3 months

Secondary Outcomes (17)

• Change in physical activity

  baseline, 3, 6 months

• Change in walking time

  baseline, 3, 6 months

• Change in sedentary time

  baseline, 3, 6 months

• Change in bone and muscle strengthening activity

  baseline, 3, 6 months

• Change in balance activity

  baseline, 3, 6 months

Other Outcomes (22)

• Acceptability - CTM-RR program

  3 months

• Appropriateness - CTM-RR program

  3 months

• Feasibility - CTM-RR program

  3 months

Study Arms (1)

Choose to Move Replacement Ready

EXPERIMENTAL

CTM-RR is a 3-month program for individuals with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis on surgical waitlists for total hip or total knee replacement that includes three required components: 1) a 30-min one-on-one virtual consultation (via Zoom) where activity coaches support participants to set goals and develop a PA action plan; 2) 8 virtual group meetings (via Zoom, 90-min each) facilitated by activity coaches, with small groups of participants (10/program) who provide peer support. Each meeting includes: i) two, 15-min movement breaks where participants perform structured hip and knee exercises delivered by the coach and ii) education and discussion on relevant topics (e.g. goal setting, PA, what to expect from surgery); 3) Home-based hip and knee exercises to complete independently, 2x/week. Optional components of CTM-RR include 4) a bi-weekly newsletter distributed by the AAS and 5) peer support check-ins outside of group meetings.

Behavioral: Choose to Move Replacement Ready

Interventions

Choose to Move Replacement Ready BEHAVIORAL

As described under study arm description.

Choose to Move Replacement Ready

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 50 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Activity coach hired by the Active Aging Society (activity coaches must speak English to participate in the evaluation);
• English-speaking older adults (aged \>=50 years) who participate in CTM-RR will be invited to participate in the evaluation
• Referral partner (People who work in a healthcare setting who refer patients into the program)

You may not qualify if:

• non-English speaking activity coach
• non-English speaking referral partner

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of British Columbia: lead
• Active Aging Society: collaborator
• Specialist Services Committee (Doctors of BC): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Active Aging Research Team, Robert H. N. Ho Research Centre

Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9, Canada

RECRUITING

Related Publications (20)

• Peer MA, Lane J. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): a review of its psychometric properties in people undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Jan;43(1):20-8. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2013.4057. Epub 2012 Dec 7.

  PMID: 23221356 BACKGROUND

• Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klassbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003 May 30;4:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-10. Epub 2003 May 30.

  PMID: 12777182 BACKGROUND

• Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, Boynton MH, Halko H. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3.

  PMID: 28851459 BACKGROUND

• Hawker GA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Faris P, Jones CA, Noseworthy T, Ravi B, Woodhouse LJ, Marshall DA; BEST-Knee Study Team. Patient appropriateness for total knee arthroplasty and predicted probability of a good outcome. RMD Open. 2023 Apr;9(2):e002808. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002808.

  PMID: 37068914 BACKGROUND

• Alghadir AH, Anwer S, Iqbal A, Iqbal ZA. Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J Pain Res. 2018 Apr 26;11:851-856. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S158847. eCollection 2018.

  PMID: 29731662 BACKGROUND

• Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986 Oct;27(1):117-126. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9.

  PMID: 3785962 BACKGROUND

• Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88.

  PMID: 9699158 BACKGROUND

• Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32(1):46-51. doi: 10.1080/03009740310000409.

  PMID: 12635946 BACKGROUND

• Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002 Feb;52(2):69-77. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00296-3.

  PMID: 11832252 BACKGROUND

• Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis JF, Oja P. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1381-95. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.

  PMID: 12900694 BACKGROUND

• Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):327-50. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.

  PMID: 18322790 BACKGROUND

• McKay H, Naylor PJ, Lau E, Gray SM, Wolfenden L, Milat A, Bauman A, Race D, Nettlefold L, Sims-Gould J. Implementation and scale-up of physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions: an evaluation roadmap. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Nov 7;16(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0868-4.

  PMID: 31699095 BACKGROUND

• Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

  PMID: 20957426 BACKGROUND

• Bauer GR, Braimoh J, Scheim AI, Dharma C. Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLoS One. 2017 May 25;12(5):e0178043. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178043. eCollection 2017.

  PMID: 28542498 BACKGROUND

• Veroff JB. The dynamics of help-seeking in men and women: a national survey study. Psychiatry. 1981 Aug;44(3):189-200.

  PMID: 7267859 BACKGROUND

• Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Visser M, Goodpaster B, Kritchevsky SB, Rubin S, Nevitt MC, Harris TB; Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. Mobility limitation in self-described well-functioning older adults: importance of endurance walk testing. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Aug;63(8):841-7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/63.8.841.

  PMID: 18772472 BACKGROUND

• Macdonald HM, Nettlefold L, Bauman A, Sims-Gould J, McKay HA. Pragmatic Evaluation of Older Adults' Physical Activity in Scale-Up Studies: Is the Single-Item Measure a Reasonable Option? J Aging Phys Act. 2022 Feb 1;30(1):25-32. doi: 10.1123/japa.2020-0412. Epub 2021 Aug 4.

  PMID: 34348228 BACKGROUND

• Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-672. doi: 10.1177/0164027504268574.

  PMID: 18504506 BACKGROUND

• Milton K, Bull FC, Bauman A. Reliability and validity testing of a single-item physical activity measure. Br J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;45(3):203-8. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.068395. Epub 2010 May 19.

  PMID: 20484314 BACKGROUND

• Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.

  PMID: 22310560 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Choose to Move website
• Active Aging Research Team website
• Aging Aging Society website

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Mobility Limitation; Social Isolation; Pain; Sedentary Behavior; Motor Activity

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Arthritis; Joint Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Rheumatic Diseases; Signs and Symptoms; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Social Behavior; Behavior; Neurologic Manifestations

Study Officials

• Heather A. McKay, PhD

  University of British Columbia

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Laura Churchill, PT, PhD

  University of British Columbia

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Joanie Sims Gould, MSW, PhD

  University of British Columbia

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

Douglas L Race, MSc

CONTACT

604-875-4111'; douglas.race@ubc.ca

Christa Hoy, MSc

CONTACT

604-675-2581; christa.hoy@ubc.ca

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: SUPPORTIVE CARE
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Professor

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 7, 2025
• First Posted: July 16, 2025
• Study Start: July 14, 2025
• Primary Completion (Estimated): March 1, 2028
• Study Completion (Estimated): March 1, 2028
• Last Updated: March 12, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-03

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

CA (1)