The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) has nine scales that each measure an aspect of the multidimensional construct of health literacy. All scales have good psychometric properties. However, it is the interpretations of data within contexts that must be proven valid, not just the psychometric properties of a measurement instrument. The purpose of this study was to establish the extent of concordance and discordance between individual patient and clinician interpretations of HLQ data in the context of complex case management. Sixteen patients with complex needs completed the HLQ and were interviewed to discuss the reasons for their answers. Also, the clinicians of each of these patients completed the HLQ about their patient, and were interviewed to discuss the reasons for their answers. Thematic analysis of HLQ scores and interview data determined the extent of concordance between patient and clinician HLQ responses, and the reasons for discordance. Highest concordance (80%) between patient and clinician item-response pairs was seen in Scale 1 and highest discordance (56%) was seen in Scale 6. Four themes were identified to explain discordance: 1) Technical or literal meaning of specific words; 2) Patients’ changing or evolving circumstances; 3) Different expectations and criteria for assigning HLQ scores; and 4) Different perspectives about a patient’s reliance on healthcare providers. This study shows that the HLQ can act as an adjunct to clinical practice to help clinicians understand a patient’s health literacy challenges and strengths early in a clinical encounter. Importantly, clinicians can use the HLQ to detect differences between their own perspectives about a patient’s health literacy and the patient’s perspective, and to initiate discussion to explore this. Provision of training to better detect these differences may assist clinicians to provide improved care. The outcomes of this study contribute to the growing body of international validation evidence about the use of the HLQ in different contexts. More specifically, this study has shown that the HLQ has measurement veracity at the patient and clinician level and may support clinicians to understand patients’ health literacy and enable a deeper engagement with healthcare services.

Aims: This study investigated the effects of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) on pain, function, and quality of life in people with early-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to a sham procedure.Methods: A total of 59 participants with symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 knee OA were randomly allocated to TAE or a sham procedure. The intervention group underwent TAE of one or more genicular arteries. The control group received a blinded sham procedure. The primary outcome was knee pain at 12 months according to the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain scale. Secondary outcomes included self-reported function and quality of life (KOOS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)), self-reported Global Change, six-minute walk test, 30-second chair stand test, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses compared participants who received complete embolization of all genicular arteries (as distinct from embolization of some arteries) (n = 17) with the control group (n = 29) for KOOS and Global Change scores at 12 months. Continuous variables were analyzed with quantile regression, adjusting for baseline scores. Dichotomized variables were analyzed with chi-squared tests.Results: Overall, 58 participants provided questionnaire data at 12 months. No significant differences were found for the primary and secondary outcomes, with both groups improving following the procedure. At 12 months, KOOS pain scores improved by 41.3% and 29.4% in the intervention and control groups, respectively. No adverse events occurred. Subgroup analysis indicated that the complete embolization group had significantly better KOOS Sports and Recreation, KOOS Quality of Life, and Global Change scores than the control group; 76.5% of participants who received complete embolization reporting being moderately or much better compared to 37.9% of the control group.Conclusion: TAE might produce benefits above placebo, but only when complete embolization of all genicular arteries is performed. Further comparative studies are required before definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of TAE can be made.Level of evidence: ICite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):158–167.

(1) Background: Measuring joint range of motion has traditionally occurred with a universal goniometer or expensive laboratory based kinematic analysis systems. Technological advances in wearable inertial measurement units (IMU) enables limb motion to be measured with a small portable electronic device. This paper aims to validate an IMU, the ‘Biokin’, for measuring shoulder range of motion in healthy adults; (2) Methods: Thirty participants completed four shoulder movements (forward flexion, abduction, and internal and external rotation) on each shoulder. Each movement was assessed with a goniometer and the IMU by two testers independently. The extent of agreement between each tester’s goniometer and IMU measurements was assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Secondary analysis compared agreement between tester’s goniometer or IMU measurements (inter-rater reliability) using ICC’s and LOA; (3) Results: Goniometer and IMU measurements for all movements showed high levels of agreement when taken by the same tester; ICCs > 0.90 and LOAs < ±5 degrees. Inter-rater reliability was lower; ICCs ranged between 0.71 to 0.89 and LOAs were outside a prior defined acceptable LOAs (i.e., > ±5 degrees); (4) Conclusions: The current study provides preliminary evidence of the concurrent validity of the Biokin IMU for assessing shoulder movements, but only when a single tester took measurements. Further testing of the Biokin’s psychometric properties is required before it can be confidently used in routine clinical practice and research settings.

Objective: To assess and compare the validity of six physical function measures in people awaiting hip or knee joint replacement.Design: Eighty-two people awaiting hip or knee replacement were assessed using six physical function measures including the WOMAC Function scale, SF-36 Physical Function scale, SF-36 Physical Component Summary scale, Patient Specific Functional Scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk. Validity was assessed using a head-to-head comparison design.Results: Convergent validity was demonstrated with significant correlations between most measures (Spearman’s rho 0.22 to 0.71). The Patient Specific Functional Scale had the lowest correlations with other measures of physical function. Discriminant validity was demonstrated with low correlations between mental health and physical function scores (Spearman’s rho −0.12 to 0.33). Only the WOMAC Function scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk demonstrated known groups validity when scores for participants who walked with a gait aid were compared with those who did not. Standardized response means and Guyatt’s responsiveness indexes indicated that the SF-36 was the least responsive measure.Conclusions: For those awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee, the current investigation found that the WOMAC Function scale, 30-second chair stand test, and 50-foot timed walk demonstrated the most evidence of validity. The Patient Specific Functional Scale might complement other measures by capturing a different aspect of physical function.