Virtual or In‐Person: Does It Matter? Comparing Pain, Function, Quality of Life, Self‐Efficacy, and Physical Function Outcomes of Virtual, Hybrid, and In‐Person Education and Exercise Program Participants
Authors' conclusion
The GLA:D Canada program appears effective in virtual, hybrid, and in-person formats.
Study context
- Population
- Individuals with knee and/or hip OA who completed the GLA:D Canada programme, January 2019–March 2024 (76.7% female, mean age 67.27 years, mean BMI 29.51 kg/m²)
- Participants
- 5,062 individuals
- Comparison
- Virtual or hybrid vs in-person education and exercise programme formats
- Primary endpoint
- Pain, function, quality of life, self-efficacy and chair stands (KOOS-12 subscales, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, 30-second chair stand test)
- Follow-up
- 3 months
Methodological detailsmultiple linear regression, analysis of covariance, negative binomial regression, adjusted for covariates
- Multiple linear regression
- Analysis of covariance
- Negative binomial regression
- Adjusted for covariates
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Each group vs in-personIncidence rate ratio (95% CI)
Hybridchair stands; 3% fewer, not clinically important
0.97(0.93–0.99)
- Virtual · function scores lower with virtual format
- B −1.71 (95% CI −2.78 to −0.63)
Original publication
Virtual or In‐Person: Does It Matter? Comparing Pain, Function, Quality of Life, Self‐Efficacy, and Physical Function Outcomes of Virtual, Hybrid, and In‐Person Education and Exercise Program Participants. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). Published 28 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →