The effect of self‐administered superficial local hot and cold application methods on pain, functional status and quality of life in primary knee osteoarthritis patients. Issue 23 (10th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aciksoz, Semra; Akyuz, Aygul; Tunay, Servet
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical nursing. Volume 26:Issue 23/24(2017)
• Page Start: 5179
• Page End: 5190
• Publication Date: 2017-10-10
• Subjects: cold application -- hot application -- knee osteoarthritis; Nursing -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14070
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-1067

Abstract

Abstract : Aims and objectives: To investigate the effect of the self‐administered superficial local hot and cold applications on pain, and the functional status and the quality of life in primary knee osteoarthritis patients. Background: Superficial local hot and cold application is used as a nonpharmacological method for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. However, various guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis have conflicting recommendation for hot and cold therapy. Design: A randomised clinical trial design. Methods: The sample consisted of patients ( n = 96) who were diagnosed with primary knee osteoarthritis. During the application stage, patients were designated to the hot and cold application groups and administered hot and cold application twice a day for 3 weeks together with standard osteoarthritis treatment. The control group only used standard osteoarthritis treatment. The data were collected with a Descriptive Information Form, a Pain Scale, the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and a Patient Satisfaction Evaluation Form. Outcome measures included pain intensity, functional status and quality of life. Results: We found decreased primary measurement pain scores and improved functional status scores and quality of life scores after the application programme compared to the pre‐application stage in both the hot and cold application groups. Once the application was completed, the pain scores, functional status scores and quality‐of‐life scores on the second measurements were found to be still statistically lower than the pre‐application scores but higher than the first measurement ([ p < .001, χ 2 = 48.000; p < .001, χ 2 = 34.000], [ p < .001, χ 2 = 22.000; p = .001 χ 2 =14.000] and [ p = .005, χ 2 = 16.000; p = .001, χ 2 = 12.500]). There was no difference in the perceived pain, functional status and quality of life between the pre‐application, postapplication and 2 weeks postapplication periods of the individuals in three groups ( p > .05). Conclusion: It was found that both hot and cold application resulted in a mild improvement in pain, functional status and quality of life, but this improvement was not sufficient to create a significant difference between the groups. Relevance to clinical practice: This study contributes to the literature on hot and cold application methods as self‐management strategies for patients with knee osteoarthritis.