Gait Rehabilitation for Early rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (GREAT): lessons learnt from a mixed-methods feasibility study and internal pilot trial

Hendry, Gordon J; Bearne, Lindsay; Fenocchi, Linda; Foster, Nadine E; Gates, Sally; Godfrey, Emma; Hider, Samantha; Jolly, Lisa; Mason, Helen; McConnachie, Alex; McInnes, Iain; Patience, Aimie; Prior, Yeliz; Sackley, Catherine; Sekhon, Mandeep; Stanley, Bethany; Vickers, Jason; Woodburn, Jim; Steultjens, Martijn PM

Abstract

Background: People with rheumatoid arthritis experience foot and lower limb pain due to active synovitis, resulting in impaired lower limb function. Earlier intervention may help with prevention of functional decline. The aims of this research were to develop and evaluate a new gait rehabilitation intervention for people with early rheumatoid arthritis, evaluate its feasibility, and to test whether or not gait rehabilitation plus usual care is more clinically and cost-effective than usual care alone.

Design and methods: We undertook a single-arm, repeated-measures, pre- and post-intervention, mixed-methods feasibility study with embedded qualitative components. We planned to undertake a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial, with health economic evaluation, process evaluation and internal pilot.

Setting and participants: Participants with early rheumatoid arthritis (< 2 years post diagnosis) were identified from early arthritis and rheumatology outpatient clinics and referred for intervention in either podiatry or physiotherapy clinics.

Intervention(s): Participants were randomised to a gait rehabilitation programme (Gait Rehabilitation Early Arthritis Trial Strides) involving a six-task gait circuit. Sessions were underpinned by motivational interviewing to facilitate behaviour change, supported by trained physiotherapists or podiatrists for a minimum of two sessions. Both groups received their normal usual care from the rheumatology multidisciplinary team.

Main outcome measures: Outcome measures for the feasibility study were intervention acceptability, adherence using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale and fidelity using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale. The main outcome measure for the internal pilot/randomised controlled trial was the Foot Function Index disability subscale. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. Other outcomes: intervention acceptability questionnaire, Exercise Adherence Rating Scale, exercise treatment beliefs via the Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire, intervention fidelity (Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level score).

Results: Thirty-five participants were recruited for feasibility and 23 (65.7%) completed 12-week follow-up. Intervention acceptability was excellent: 21/23 were confident that it could help and would recommend it and 22/23 indicated it made sense to them. Adherence was good, with a median (interquartile range) Exercise Adherence Rating Scale score of 17/24 (12.5–22.5). Twelve participants’ and nine therapists’ interviews confirmed intervention acceptability, identified perceptions of benefit, but highlighted some barriers to completion. Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Scale scores demonstrated good fidelity. The trial did not progress from internal pilot to full main trial as a result of low recruitment and high attrition, after 53 participants were recruited from 9 sites over 12 months. Process evaluation confirmed good intervention acceptability and adherence, and fair fidelity. Evaluation of clinical and cost-effectiveness was not possible.

Limitations: Significant delays were experienced with the impact of coronavirus disease 2019, regulatory approvals, contracts and site readiness, resulting in few sites opening in time and low recruitment capacity. Foot and/or ankle pain prevalence was lower than anticipated, resulting in a low potential participant pool and a low conversion rate from screening to enrolment.

Conclusions: The Gait Rehabilitation Early Arthritis Trial Strides intervention was acceptable to people with early rheumatoid arthritis and intervention clinicians, safe, with good levels of adherence by participants, and fair intervention fidelity. The randomised controlled trial stopped early following failure to meet recruitment targets. Gait Rehabilitation Early Arthritis Trial Strides is a promising intervention that could be adapted for future evaluations. A definitive trial of the Gait Rehabilitation Early Arthritis Trial Strides gait rehabilitation intervention still needs to be done.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 15/165/04.

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Mar 26, 2025
• Online Publication Date: Mar 26, 2025
• Deposit Date: Apr 16, 2025
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 16, 2025
• Journal: Health Technology Assessment
• Print ISSN: 1366-5278
• Publisher: NIHR Journals Library
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/xbdj8546