Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Reducing arthritis pain through physical activity: a new public health, tiered approach

Benjamin M Ellis and Philip G Conaghan
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (663): 438-439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X692633
Benjamin M Ellis
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust; Senior Clinical Policy Adviser, Arthritis Research UK, London.
Roles: Consultant Rheumatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip G Conaghan
Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds.
Roles: Professor of Musculoskeletal Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The burden of arthritis is a massive, growing problem. In the UK, there are 8.75 million people who have sought treatment for arthritis, with osteoarthritis affecting one in three people aged >45 years.1 In any given year, an estimated one in six adults aged >25 years has back pain lasting more than 3 months.2 The personal impact of living with long-term pain and disability is great, including on mental health, wellbeing, and the ability to remain independent. In terms of burden on the NHS, one in eight (12%) general practice consultations includes a musculoskeletal component.3 The National Joint Registry recorded over 200 000 hip and knee replacements in 2015, >90% of which were for osteoarthritis.4 Collectively, musculoskeletal conditions account for the largest number of years lived with disability in this country,5 and comprise the third largest NHS England programme budget £4.7 billion annual spend.6 Musculoskeletal conditions accounted for 30.8 million working days lost in the UK in 2016, second only to minor illnesses as a cause.7 People with musculoskeletal conditions are less likely to be in paid work than those with other long-term conditions, and tend to retire early.8

An ageing, increasingly overweight/obese population means this burden will continue to increase. Critically, musculoskeletal conditions are major contributors to multimorbidity because of their prevalence, impact on quality of life, and because they deprive people of their mobility and independence, interfering with management of other conditions.

IS THERE A FEASIBLE SOLUTION?

This enormous problem of arthritis and multimorbidities comes at a time of unprecedented need for and demand upon NHS services, coupled with a historic financial challenge. Care for people with long-term conditions needs to move towards personalised, integrated systems of care, with emphasis on supported self-management, for example, through care and support planning, and shared decision making.9 The NHS Five Year Forward View articulated the challenges to the NHS in supporting the increasingly complex health needs of an ageing society.10 This led to multiple initiatives linking health, social care, and public health approaches including local devolution experiments, and the creation of the sustainability and transformation partnerships.

There are limited treatment options for the GP supporting a patient with arthritis and back pain. Although pharmacotherapies are commonly used, their toxicities are considerable, especially in the context of multimorbidity.11,12 However, there is increasing doubt about their efficacy, and overmedicalisation is an important barrier to self-management.13 Muscle-strengthening and activity-related exercises are very effective in reducing osteoarthritis and back pain, and improve everyday functioning and mobility; there are few adverse side effects and many potential additional benefits, for example, cardiovascular, mental health, and overall wellbeing;14 this approach is supported by systematic literature reviews and NICE recommendations.15,16 Though physical activity programmes are widely available, these often do not meet the needs of people with painful musculoskeletal problems. Also, such programmes have often not been part of a coordinated local approach, building on community assets.

Given their prevalence, impact, and the underpinning risk factors amenable to relatively simple activity interventions, a comprehensive public health approach to painful musculoskeletal conditions is therefore warranted.

A NEW PUBLIC HEALTH, TIERED APPROACH

Providing Physical Activity Interventions for People with Musculoskeletal Conditions is a new report to support local commissioners and providers of health and wellbeing services, including NHS and local authorities, in taking action to improve musculoskeletal health locally.17 It was co-produced by Arthritis Research UK, the Department of Health, Public Health England, and NHS England; it has been endorsed by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, and the Local Government Association. It provides information and practical solutions for local physical activity provision, includes a focused checklist to enable local decision makers to map, and highlight any gaps in, current levels of physical activity provision. The report reviews the extensive and well-established benefits of physical activity both for people with musculoskeletal conditions and wider society. At the heart of the report is a tiered approach (Figure 1) providing a framework to support people with these conditions to benefit from physical activity.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Commissioning physical activity provision for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

Many people with reasonable mobility can benefit from self-directed physical activity using accessible community facilities, so long as staff are aware of, and facilities equipped for, the needs of people with musculoskeletal conditions. Others will benefit from supervised physical activity, including land-and water-based exercise groups, such as T’ai Chi, pilates, walking groups, or aqua aerobics.

There are a number of principles underpinning the higher-tiered interventions. Improving muscle strength is a basic construct: if someone can’t undo a jar or get out of a chair easily, they have significant muscle weakness and it will be fruitless expecting them to join a walking group. They will need a much more structured approach, akin to cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation. One such approach for lower-limb joint pain is the ESCAPE-pain programme, a 6-week, 12-visit intervention, which provides both self-management principles and supervised instruction in appropriate leg-strengthening exercises. It has been demonstrated not only to be effective in terms of pain and functioning outcomes in clinical trials, but also to be cost-effective in the UK setting. Of course, some people will need individualised supervised support with prescribed exercises from physiotherapists.

Which tier is appropriate for a given individual? This needs to be a shared decision between the person with arthritis or back pain and those supporting them, who can be any care provider including GPs, allied health professionals, health trainers, fitness professionals, or peers. People’s personal preferences are important and their physical activity provision needs vary over time as their health changes. All this must be supported by local systems for behaviour change.

A PRESCRIPTION FOR BETTER MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH

Conceptually the idea of increasing physical activity is not new, but this joined-up approach is. This is not about a whole new programme of work, but it is about making sure that local physical activity provision meets the needs of people with arthritis and back pain. This will take time, but here are some things we can all do now:

  • produce and maintain up-to-date lists of local physical activity opportunities and contacts for each tier that can be shared with colleagues and patients;

  • when seeing people with arthritis and back pain, promote physical activity as a way to improve symptoms;

  • develop local services, such as health trainers,18 or care and support planning, which can signpost people to local physical activity services in the tier that meets their needs and personal preferences; and

  • engage local authority and clinical commissioners to adopt a public health approach,19 undertaking local review of musculoskeletal health need and ensuring physical activity provision in line with this report, particularly ensuring access to ESCAPE-pain.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all those who contributed to the report entitled Providing Physical Activity Interventions for People with Musculoskeletal Conditions, especially Anna Garratt and Tim Marshall.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Funding

Philip G Conaghan is supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Arthritis Research UK
    (2013) Osteoarthritis in general practice.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Arthritis Research UK
    (2017) State of musculoskeletal health.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Arthritis Research UK National Primary Care Centre, Keele University
    (2009) Musculoskeletal Matters, What do general practitioners see? Bulletin 1:pp 1–2.
  4. 4.↵
    1. National Joint Registry Editorial Board.
    (2016) 13th annual report 2016 National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man Surgical data to 31 December 2015, Part 2. Clinical activity 2015 and using the dedicated NJR Reports website. (NJR).
  5. 5.↵
    1. GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators
    (2016) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388(10053):1545–1602.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. NHS England
    (2014) NHS England 2013/14 CCG programme budgeting benchmarking tool, https://www.england.nhs.uk/resources/resources-for-ccgs/prog-budgeting/ (accessed 31 Aug 2017).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Office for National Statistics
    (2016) Sickness absence in the labour market: 2016 (ONS).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Schofield D,
    2. Shrestha RN,
    3. Percival R,
    4. et al.
    (2013) The personal and national costs of lost labour force participation due to arthritis: an economic study. BMC Public Health 13(1):188.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Roberts S,
    3. Dixon A
    (2013) Delivering better services for people with long-term conditions: building the house of care (King’s Fund, London).
  10. 10.↵
    1. NHS England
    (2014) Five year forward view. (NHS England), https://www.england.nhs.uk/five-year-forward-view/ (accessed 31 Aug 2017).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Machado GC,
    2. Maher CG,
    3. Ferreira PH,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Efficacy and safety of paracetamol for spinal pain and osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials. BMJ 350:h1225.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Machado GC,
    2. Maher CG,
    3. Ferreira PH,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for spinal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 76(7):1269–1278.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gordon K,
    2. Rice H,
    3. Allcock N,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Br J Gen Pract, Barriers to self-management of chronic pain in primary care: a qualitative focus group study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X688825.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Eisele M,
    2. Kaduszkiewicz H,
    3. König HH,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Br J Gen Pract, Determinants of health-related quality of life in older primary care patients: results of the longitudinal observational AgeCoDe Study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X687337.
  15. 15.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2016) Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. NG59 (NICE, London) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59 (accessed 7 Sep 2017).
  16. 16.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2014) Osteoarthritis: care and management. CG177 (NICE, London) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177 (accessed 7 Sep 2017).
  17. 17.↵
    1. Arthritis Research UK, Public Health England, NHS England, Department of Health
    (2017) Providing physical activity interventions for people with musculoskeletal conditions (Arthritis Research UK).
  18. 18.↵
    1. Harris J,
    2. Williams T,
    3. Hart O,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Using health trainers to promote self-management of chronic pain: can it work? Br J Pain 8(1):27–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Clark PM,
    2. Ellis BM
    (2014) A public health approach to musculoskeletal health. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 28(3):517–532.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (663)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 663
October 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reducing arthritis pain through physical activity: a new public health, tiered approach
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Reducing arthritis pain through physical activity: a new public health, tiered approach
Benjamin M Ellis, Philip G Conaghan
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (663): 438-439. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X692633

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Reducing arthritis pain through physical activity: a new public health, tiered approach
Benjamin M Ellis, Philip G Conaghan
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (663): 438-439. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X692633
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • IS THERE A FEASIBLE SOLUTION?
    • A NEW PUBLIC HEALTH, TIERED APPROACH
    • A PRESCRIPTION FOR BETTER MUSCULOSKELETAL HEALTH
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Continuity of GP care: using personal lists in general practice
  • Creating space for gut feelings in the diagnosis of cancer in primary care
  • GP workforce crisis: what can we do now?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242