Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Unhealthy Body Change in Women

The role of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in unhealthy body change was examined in a sample of 143 women university students. They completed the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q), reported their level of concern with weight and with WHR, and used unmarked measuring tapes to record their subjective (self-perceived), ideal, and objective (measured) waist and hip circumference. Although body shape was reported as important, and concern with WHR correlated significantly with symptoms of disordered eating, the relationships involving WHR were not independent of those involving body weight. Thus, there appears to be little behavioural and/or clinical significance in the aesthetic evaluations made by women of their WHR. Reasons for this are considered in light of evidence that women regard WHR as more difficult to control and less amenable to change than their overall body weight.

Safety and efficacy of routine postoperative ibuprofen for pain and disability related to ectopic bone formation after hip replacement surgery (HIPAID): a randomised control trial

Objectives To determine the benefits and risks of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) as prophylaxis for ectopic bone formation in patients undergoing total hip replacement (or revision) surgery.
Design Double blind randomised placebo controlled clinical trial, stratified by treatment site and surgery (primary or revision).
Setting 20 orthopaedic surgery centres in Australia and New Zealand.
Participants 902 patients undergoing elective primary or revision total hip replacement surgery.
Intervention 14 days' treatment with ibuprofen (1200 mg daily) or matching placebo started within 24 hours of surgery.
Main outcome measures Changes in self reported hip pain and physical function 6 to 12 months after surgery (Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis index).
Results There were no significant differences between the groups for improvements in hip pain (mean difference -0.1, 95% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.2, P = 0.6) or physical function (-0.1, -0.4 to 0.2, P = 0.5), despite a decreased risk of ectopic bone formation (relative risk 0.69, 0.56 to 0.83) associated with ibuprofen. There was a significantly increased risk of major bleeding complications in the ibuprofen group during the admission period (2.09, 1.00 to 4.39).
Conclusions These data do not support the use of routine prophylaxis with NSAIDs in patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery.
Trial registration NCT00145730.

Evaluating quality of life in hip and knee replacement: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument

Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life short version instrument (WHOQOL-BREF), and to determine its responsiveness in assessing early outcome after total hip or knee replacement surgery.

Methods: At baseline (entry to an orthopedic waiting list), 279 participants completed the WHOQOL-BREF instrument, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Assessment of Quality of Life (AQOL) instrument, Kessler Psychological Distress (K10) scale, and the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ). A total of 74 patients completed reassessments 3 months after surgery.

Results: The WHOQOL-BREF demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for all domains (Cronbach's = 0.76-0.84) and moderate concurrent validity for the physical and psychological domains (r = 0.67 for physical versus AQOL; r = -0.71 for psychological versus K10). Minimal ceiling or floor effects were identified at baseline or 3 months, except for the social relationships domain. The disease-specific WOMAC subscales were most responsive to change (relative efficiency [RE] 0.66-1.00). Apart from social relationships, all WHOQOL-BREF scores improved significantly after surgery. The physical domain was more responsive than the AQOL (RE 0.50 versus 0.42) and was similar to the MHAQ (RE 0.55 for MHAQ). The responsiveness of the psychological domain was similar to that of the K10 scale (RE 0.11 versus 0.08).

Conclusion: The WHOQOL-BREF has good psychometric properties for use in persons with severe joint disease, and by providing complementary information, it offers clinicians and researchers an additional tool for comprehensively assessing quality of life in this patient group.

Can a disease-specific education program augment self-management skills and improve Health-Related Quality of Life in people with hip or knee osteoarthritis?

Background: Patient education and self-management programs are offered in many countries to people with chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA). The most well-known is the disease-specific Stanford Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP). While Australian and international clinical guidelines promote the concept of self-management for OA, there is currently little evidence to support the use of the ASMP. Several meta-analyses have reported that arthritis self-management programs had minimal or no effect on reducing pain and disability. However, previous studies have had methodological shortcomings including the use of outcome measures which do not accurately reflect program goals. Additionally, limited cost-effectiveness analyses have been undertaken and the cost-utility of the program has not been explored.

Methods/design: This study is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy (in terms of Health-Related Quality of Life and self-management skills) and cost-utility of a 6-week group-based Stanford ASMP for people with hip or knee OA.

Six hundred participants referred to an orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist for hip or knee OA will be recruited from outpatient clinics at 2 public hospitals and community-based private practices within 2 private hospital settings in Victoria, Australia. Participants must be 18 years or over, fluent in English and able to attend ASMP sessions. Exclusion criteria include cognitive dysfunction, previous participation in self-management programs and placement on a waiting list for joint replacement surgery or scheduled joint replacement.

Eligible, consenting participants will be randomised to an intervention group (who receive the ASMP and an arthritis self-management book) or a control group (who receive the book only). Follow-up will be at 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months using standardised self-report measures. The primary outcome is Health-Related Quality of Life at 12 months, measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life instrument. Secondary outcome measures include the Health Education Impact Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (pain subscale and total scores), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Priority Tool. Cost-utility analyses will be undertaken using administrative records and self-report data. A subgroup of 100 participants will undergo qualitative interviews to explore the broader potential impacts of the ASMP.

Discussion: Using an innovative design combining both quantitative and qualitative components, this project will provide high quality data to facilitate evidence-based recommendations regarding the ASMP.

Guideline for the non-surgical management of hip and knee osteoarthritis

Introduction: Chronic disease is a major public health burden on Australian society. An increasing proportion of the population has risk factors for, or at least one, chronic disease, leading to increasing public health costs. Health service policy and delivery must not only address acute conditions, it must also effectively respond to the wide range of health and public service requirements of people with chronic illness.^1,2 Strong primary health care policy is an important foundation for a successful national health delivery system and long term management of public health, and is linked to practical outcomes including lower mortality, decreased hospitalisation and improved health outcomes.¹ National strategic health policy has recently given increased recognition to the importance of chronic disease management, with the Australian Federal Government endorsement of a number of initiatives for the prevention (or delay in onset), early detection and evidence based management of chronic disease, including osteoarthritis.^1,3
Chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including arthritis, account for over 4% of the national disease burden in terms of disability adjusted life years. Over 6 million Australians (almost one-third of the population) are estimated to have a chronic musculoskeletal disease; chronic musculoskeletal disease represents the main cause of long term pain and physical disability. In Australia, osteoarthritis is self reported by more than 1.4 million people (7.3% of the population4) and is the tenth most commonly managed problem in general practice.5 This number is set to rise as the elderly population grows. Osteoarthritis exerts a significant burden on the individual and the community through reduction in quality of life, diminished employment capacity and an increase in health care costs. For further details, refer to the Evidence to support the National Action Plan for Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis: Opportunities to improve health-related quality of life and reduce the burden of disease and disability (2004).⁶
As such, federal government health policy has identified arthritis as a National Health Priority Area and adopted a number of initiatives aimed at decreasing the burden of chronic disease and disability; raising awareness of preventive disease factors; providing access to evidence based knowledge; and improving the overall management of arthritis within the community.4 In 2002, all Australian health ministers designated arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions as Australia’s seventh National Health Priority Area. In response, a National Action Plan was developed in 2004 by the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Conditions Advisory Group (NAMSCAG).6 The aim of this document was to provide a blueprint for national initiatives to improve the health related quality of life of people living with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis; reduce the cost and prevalence of these conditions; and reduce the impact on individuals, their carers and their communities within Australia. The National Action Plan was developed to complement both the National Chronic Disease Strategy – which is broader – and the National Service Improvement Framework for Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis, in addition to other national and state/ territory structures.

Waist circumference, waist-hip ratio and BMI and their correlation with cardiovascular risk factors in Australian adults

Objectives. To compare body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and waist–hip ratio (WHR) as indices of obesity and assess the respective associations with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia.

Design and setting. A national sample of 11 247 Australians aged ≥25 years was examined in 2000 in a cross-sectional survey.

Main outcome measures. The examination included a fasting blood sample, standard 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, blood pressure measurements and questionnaires to assess treatment for dyslipidaemia and hypertension. BMI, waist circumference and WHR were measured to assess overweight and obesity.

Results. The prevalence of obesity amongst Australian adults defined by BMI, waist circumference and WHR was 20.8, 30.5 and 15.8% respectively. The unadjusted odds ratio for the fourth vs. first quartile of each obesity measurement showed that WHR had the strongest relationship with type 2 diabetes, dyslipidaemia (women only) and hypertension. Following adjustment for age, however, there was little difference between the three measures of obesity, with the possible exceptions of hypertension in women, where BMI had a stronger association, and dyslipidaemia in women and type 2 diabetes in men, where WHR was marginally superior.

Conclusions. Waist circumference, BMI and WHR identified different proportions of the population, as measured by both prevalence of obesity and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Whilst WHR had the strongest correlations with CVD risk factors before adjustment for age, the three obesity measures performed similarly after adjustment for age. Given the difficulty of using age-adjusted associations in the clinical setting, these results suggest that given appropriate cut-off points, WHR is the most useful measure of obesity to use to identify individuals with CVD risk factors.

Variation in age and physical status prior to total knee and hip replacement surgery : a comparison of centers in Australia and Europe

Objective : To investigate whether variation exists in the preoperative age, pain, stiffness, and physical function of people undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) at several centers in Australia and Europe.
Methods : Individual Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index data (range 0-100, where 0 = best and 100 = worst) collected within 6 weeks prior to primary TKR and THR were extracted from 16 centers (n = 2,835) according to specified eligibility criteria. Analysis of covariance was used to evaluate differences in pain, stiffness, and physical function between centers, with adjustment for age and sex.
Results : There was marked variation in the age of people undergoing surgery between the centers (TKR mean age 67-73 years; F[6,1004] = 4.21, P < 0.01, and THR mean age 63-72 years; F[14,1807] = 7.27, P < 0.01). Large differences in preoperative status were observed between centers, most notably for pain (TKR adjusted mean pain 52.5-61.1; F[6,1002] = 4.26, P < 0.01, and THR adjusted mean pain 49.2-65.7; F[14,1802] = 8.44, P < 0.01) and physical function (TKR adjusted mean function 52.7-61.4; F[6,1002] = 5.27, P < 0.01, and THR adjusted mean function 53.3-71.0; F[14,1802] = 6.71, P < 0.01). Large effect sizes (up to 0.98) reflect the magnitude of variation between centers and highlight the clinical relevance of these findings.
Conclusion : The large variations in age and preoperative status indicate substantial differences in the timing of joint replacement across the centers studied, with potential for compromised surgical outcomes due to premature or delayed surgery. Possible contributing factors include patient preferences, the absence of concrete indications for surgery, and the capacity of the health care systems.