Virtual or In-Person: Does It Matter? Comparing Pain, Function, Quality of Life, Self-Efficacy, and Physical Function...

This study aimed to determine if program format (in-person, virtual, or hybrid) results in differences in 3-month outcomes of pain, function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and chair stands in a hip/knee osteoarthritis-management program.

A secondary analysis of the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) Canada database was completed. Multiple linear regression was completed for pain and function, analysis of covariance for quality of life and self-efficacy, and negative binomial regression to analyze chair stands. Outcome measures included the 12-item Knee/Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (pain, quality of life, and physical function subscales), Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (self-efficacy), and 30-second chair stand test. Models were adjusted for different covariates.

The analyses included 5,062 individuals with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis who completed the program between January 2019 and March 2024 (76.7% female sex, mean age 67.27 years, mean body mass index 29.51 kg/m²). When compared with in-person formats, there was no difference in virtual or hybrid formats at 3 months for pain, quality of life, or self-efficacy. When compared with in-person formats, the virtual format resulted in lower function scores (B = -1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.78 to -0.63) and the hybrid format performed 3% fewer chair stands at 3 months (incidence rate ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-0.99), which is not a clinically important change.

The GLA:D Canada program appears effective in virtual, hybrid, and in-person formats. With the known barriers of strictly in-person formats, these results provide further support for the research and implementation of virtual and hybrid approaches for helping individuals manage osteoarthritis.