Evaluation of Choose to Move Replacement Ready (CTM-RR)

NCT07696650 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: H26-01517
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 210
• 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 goals of this observational study are to describe how the adapted program, Choose to Move Replacement Ready (CTM-RR), is implemented in BC and determine if the adapted program improves health outcomes in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who are on surgical waitlists for TKR/THR. The investigators will also evaluate whether any health benefits achieved by CTM-RR participants are maintained three months after they finish the program and also during the remaining time that they wait for their TKR/THR surgery. The investigators will work with referral partners from hospitals and orthopaedic clinics in BC to recruit participants into CTM-RR. 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

Osteoarthritis (OA); Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Hip; Total Knee Anthroplasty; Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA); Mobility Limitation; Physical Activity; Older Adults; Social Isolation or Loneliness; Pain; Implementation Science; Sedentary Behaviors; Osteoarthritis (OA) of the Knee

Keywords

Osteoarthritis; Implementation science; Physical activity; Social isolation; Older adults; Mobility; Joint replacement; Loneliness; Pain

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Implementation outcome: Fidelity (Proportion of participants who adhered to CTM-RR program components)

  Obtained from post-program survey. Measures adherence to prescribed frequency, intensity, duration, and type of exercises performed, and attendance at CTM-RR group meetings.

  3 months

• Effectiveness outcome: Change in physical activity

  Single-item physical activity questionnaire. Output measure is self-reported number of days engaging in ≥30 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the past week (range 0-7). Higher scores reflect a better outcome (i.e. increased physical activity)

  baseline, 3 and 6 months, 2 weeks pre-operative

Secondary Outcomes (23)

• Reach

  3 months

• Retention

  Baseline, 3 and 6 months, 2 weeks pre-operative

• Dose delivered

  3 months

• Adoption

  3 months

• Adaptation (survey)

  3 months

Other Outcomes (17)

• Perceived participant responsiveness (survey)

  3 months

• Acceptability - CTM-RR program

  3 months

• Appropriateness - CTM-RR program

  3 months

Study Arms (1)

Choose to Move Replacement Ready

EXPERIMENTAL

Choose to Move Replacement Ready 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 physical activity (PA) action plan; 2) 8 virtual group meetings (via Zoom, 90-min each) facilitated by activity coaches, with 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 Active Aging Society 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

• Active Aging Society: collaborator
• University of British Columbia: lead
• 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

Location

Related Publications (21)

• Nettlefold L, Macdonald HM, Sims Gould J, Bauman A, Szewczyk Z, McKay HA. Does optimizing Choose to Move - a health-promoting program for older adults - enhance scalability, program implementation and effectiveness? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024 Dec 18;21(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01649-9.

  PMID: 39695643 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Kroll T, Kehn M, Ho PS, Groah S. The SCI Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES): development and psychometric properties. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007 Aug 30;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-34.

  PMID: 17760999 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

Related Links

• Choose to Move website
• Active Aging Research Team website
• Active Aging Society website
• Doctors of BC Surgical Patient Optimization Collaborative (SPOC) website

MeSH Terms

Conditions

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

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

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

Giulia Coletta, PhD

CONTACT

604-875-4111; giulia.coletta@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: June 30, 2026
• First Posted: July 10, 2026
• Study Start: August 1, 2026
• Primary Completion (Estimated): August 1, 2028
• Study Completion (Estimated): August 1, 2028
• Last Updated: July 10, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-07

Locations

CA (1)