Psychological factors associated with instrumental activities of daily living disability in older adults with knee osteoarthritis
=================================================================================================================================

* Keigo Nanjo
* Takashi Ikeda
* Naoko Nagashio
* Tomoko Sakai
* Tetsuya Jinno

## Abstract

**Purpose** The population of older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA)-related disabilities is increasing globally. This study aimed to investigate the psychological factors associated with instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) disability in older adults with knee OA.

**Materials and Methods** A cross-sectional study was conducted on 179 patients with knee OA aged ≥ 65 years. The six-item short form of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-6), the four-item short form of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-4), and the fifteen-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) were used to assess psychological factors. IADL status was assessed using eight activity items. Participants were divided into IADL-disabled and non-disabled groups. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed with the IADL disability status as the dependent variable. The PCS-6, PSEQ-4, and GDS-15 tools were included as independent variables in the logistic regression model. Demographics, motor functions, and pain intensity were also included as confounders.

**Results** Of the total participants, 88 (49.1%) showed disability in conducting IADL. PSEQ-4 (odds ratio =0.90, 95%; confidence interval=0.82–0.99, p=0.02) was a significant independent variable among all psychological factors.

**Conclusion** Our study showed the importance of assessing self-efficacy using the PSEQ-4 in relation to IADL disability in older adults with knee OA.

Keywords
*   gait speed
*   instrumental activities of daily living
*   knee osteoarthritis
*   older adult
*   pain
*   self-efficacy

## Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent age-related chronic condition and one of the common causes of disabilities limiting daily activities in older adults [1]. Since the population of older adults with knee OA-related disabilities is increasing globally [2], healthcare professionals need effective countermeasures to address this concern.

Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) are essential elements in the independent lives of older adults. It is defined as independent functioning in a given environment and includes activities such as meal preparation, shopping, commutation, financial management, and performance of other household chores [3]. Meanwhile, basic activities of daily living (BADL) include basic self-care activities such as bathing, dressing, eating, and other indoor activities [4]. IADL require more complex functioning than BADL. Since IADL disability in older adults influences health-related quality of life [5], all-cause mortality [6], and decline of cognitive function [8], assessments and interventions for IADL disability are important for older adults.

Disabilities in patients with knee OA are affected by several factors such as gait speed, knee muscle strength, and pain [8,9]. Psychological factors, such as pain catastrophizing [10-12], self-efficacy [12-15], and depressive symptoms [14-16], have also been reported among disabled patients with knee OA. Regarding psychological interventions for patients with knee OA, a systematic review proved effective in improving functional limitation [17]. A randomized controlled trial showed that a combined intervention of exercise and cognitive therapy for pain was more effective in dealing with the disability than exercise or cognitive therapy alone [18].

In most studies of psychological factors and disability among patients with knee OA [10-16], disability has been treated as a concept that combines BADL and IADL. It is well known that disabilities in older adults progress hierarchically [19]; IADL disability occurs before BADL disability [20]. To prevent an incident or deterioration of disabilities in older adults with knee OA, countermeasures should be taken at an early stage of the disability. Therefore, specific factors related to IADL disability must be identified to develop effective interventions. To our knowledge, there are limited studies of IADL disability among older adults with knee OA [21,22]; only our previous study has specified that gait speed and pain intensity are related to IADL disability in older adults with knee OA [23]. Psychological interventions are recommended for such disabilities [17]; however, which psychological factors specifically are associated with IADL disability remain unclear.

This study, thus, aimed to determine the psychological factors associated with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. We hypothesized that psychological factors such as pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, and depressive symptoms are independently associated with IADL disability, even when adjusted for demographics, motor functions, and pain intensity as confounders.

## Materials and Methods

### Participants

Patients with knee OA scheduled for primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) were eligible for this study. The inclusion criteria were those aged ≥65 years and with a diagnosis of bilateral knee OA based on the clinical guidelines: knee pain for >3 months and Kellgren–Lawrence score (KL-score) of ≥2 [24]. Conversely, the exclusion criteria were those diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, knee OA after trauma, dementia (mini-mental state examination score <23), need for human assistance in BADL (Barthel index <100), intention to get TKA or UKA on the other knee, serious pathologies (e.g., cancer during treatment), and neurological findings (e.g., muscle weakness) that could influence the test performance. A total of 357 patients were identified at the start of the study. Of them, 166 patients were excluded due to a history of TKA or UKA on the other knee (n=106), history of lower extremity surgery except knee joint (n=32), rheumatoid arthritis (n=13), mini-mental state examination score <23 (n=3), knee OA after trauma (n=3), Barthel index <100 (n=9). A total of 191 patients were invited to participate in this study, of whom, 12 refused. Finally, 179 patients were included in the study.

### Study design

This study used a cross-sectional design, and its conducting and reporting were guided by the STROBE guidelines [25]. Sample recruitment was conducted at Shonan Kamakura General Hospital from May 17, 2019 to May 30, 2021. All participants provided informed consent before the study began. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the research ethics boards of the Tokushukai Group Ethics Committee (No. TGE01198-024). All measurements were evaluated by physical therapists one month before the surgery. Age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index [26], and KL-score of both knees were obtained from clinical records and used as confounders.

### Outcome measures

#### IADL status

IADL status was assessed on the basis of eight activity items (preparing food, shopping, housekeeping, doing laundry, taking medication, using transportation, using a telephone, and handling finances) using the IADL scale proposed by Lawton and Brody [3].

Participants were asked to answer their abilities to perform these IADL activities by “able,” “need help,” or “unable.” Based on previous cross-sectional reports [27,28], we defined those participants who opted for “need help” or “unable” to perform for at least one item as “disabled”; otherwise, they were defined as “non-disabled.”

#### Psychological factors

Pain catastrophizing, self-efficacy, and depressive symptoms were assessed as psychological factors based on previous reports that discussed the relationship between disability and psychological factors in patients with knee OA [10-16].

Pain catastrophizing was assessed using the Japanese version of the six-item short form of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-6) [29]. The PCS consists of subscales related to magnification, rumination, and helplessness [30]. PCS-6 has the same property as the original version, correlates to pain intensity assessed by numerical rating scales (*r*=0.30, *p*<0.001) [31], and has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.90) [29]. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced each of the six thoughts and feelings when experiencing pain on a scale from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“all the time”). The total PCS-6 score ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating higher levels of pain catastrophizing.

Self-efficacy was assessed using the Japanese version of four-item short form of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-4) [32]. The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire is a 10-item self-report questionnaire used to assess self-efficacy in individuals with chronic pain [33]. The PSEQ-4 has the same property as the original version [31], correlates pain intensity assessed by numerical rating scales (*r*=-0.35, *p*<0.001), and has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.90) [33]. The PSEQ-4 consists of four questions, and participants were asked how confident they were to perform the given activities despite pain, on a scale of 0 (“not at all confident”) to 6 (“completely confident”). The PSEQ-4 scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more confidence in performing the given activities despite pain.

Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Japanese version of the fifteen-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) [34]. The GDS-15 can screen depression (area under the curve of the receiver characteristic operating curve=0.96) and has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.83) [34]. The participants answered with a “yes” or “no” response. The total score was calculated from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms.

### Confounders

In addition to the aforementioned items, we assessed gait speed and pain intensity as confounders for outcome measures, referring to previous studies that report factors related to IADL disability in older adults [23,27,28,35]. Knee joint functions were also assessed as confounders, since they are considered specific factors related to disability in patients with knee OA [25]. Based on previous studies regarding IADL disability and gait speed [23,28,35], usual gait speed (UGS) was measured using a 5-meter gait test [35].

The Japanese version of pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-pain) was used for the representative index of pain intensity [38]. The KOOS-pain consists of nine questions. Participants were asked about their condition one week before the evaluation date. Standardized answer choices were provided, and each question was assigned a score ranging from 0 to 4. A normalized total score of 0 to 100 was calculated, and higher scores indicated that patients reported less pain. The KOOS-pain correlates with the body pain subscale of the short form-36 health survey (*r*=0.67, *p*<0.01) and has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.90) [38].

To test knee joint functions, isometric knee extension strength (IKES) was measured using a handheld dynamometer [39]. Knee extension and flexion range of motion (ROM) were measured using a goniometer [40]. The knee scheduled for surgery was defined as the affected side, and the opposite side was defined as the unaffected side. IKES and knee ROM measurements were conducted on both knees.

### Statistical analysis

The participants were divided into two groups according to their IADL status: those who answered “need help” or “unable” to perform on at least one item were assigned to the IADL disabled group, and those who answered “able” in all items were assigned to the IADL non-disabled group. All outcome measures and confounders were compared between the two groups. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables, and student’s *t*-test and Mann–Whitney *U* test were used for normally distributed and non-normally distributed variables, respectively. In the IADL disabled group, the proportion of each item of IADL disability was shown.

To confirm the relationships between confounders and psychological factors, correlations between continuous variables (*p*-values <0.05), while comparing the two groups, were calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s rank correlation. Correlations among psychological factors were also calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation. Regarding sex differences, the values of psychological factors between men and women were compared.

Which psychological factor can be associated with IADL disability was determined using a binary logistic regression model with IADL status as the dependent variable (disabled= 1 or not= 0). All psychological factors (e.g., PCS-6, PSEQ-4, GDS-15) were included as the independent variable, because we consider them to confound with each other based on the analysis results of the correlations. Furthermore, since previous reports have shown that age, sex [41], gait speed [23,28,35], and pain intensity [23,27] are factors related to IADL disability in older adults, these variables were included as confounders. In addition to this, other confounders that had *p-*values <0.05 in the two groups of comparison were added to the logistic regression model as confounders. All analyses were performed using R version 4.0.3. for all tests, a *p*-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

To determine the sample size for the logistic regression analysis, the number of cases (N) = 10 k/p are needed, where k is the number of independent variables as covariates and p is a defined ratio of responders to non-responders at the follow-up points [42]. To avoid overfitting and comply with the recommendations of Vittinghoff and McCulloch [43], we assumed that we would arrive at nine factors out of all the variables in the measurements and demographics. In a study involving older adults with joint pain (n=407), 60.9% of participants had IADL disability [27]. Assuming that the ratio p of disabled to non-disabled is 1:1.5, the minimum sample size in this study was calculated as 10 × 9/0.6 = 150.

## Results

All participants completed all assessments, and all confounders were collected from their medical records. Of all participants, 88 (49.1%) had IADL disabilities. Sixty-one (69.3%) showed disability in shopping, and 47 (53.4%) showed disability in using transportation. No participant showed disability in taking medication and using a telephone (Table 1).

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/29/2021.09.10.21262871/T1)

Table 1. 
Content of IADL disability in IADL disabled group (n=88)

The IADL non-disabled group was significantly younger (*p*=0.001) and had a greater number of men (*p*=0.009) than the IADL disabled group. The IADL non-disabled group showed significantly higher values of UGS and IKES on both sides, KOOS-pain and PSEQ-4. Conversely, the IADL non-disabled group showed significantly lower values of PCS-6 and GDS-15 (Table 2).

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/29/2021.09.10.21262871/T2)

Table 2. 
Baseline characteristics of the study population and comparison between IADL non-disabled and disabled groups

The results of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients are presented in Table 3. The PCS-6 significantly correlated with the PSEQ-4 (*r*=-0.23) and GDS-15 (*r*=0.36). The PSEQ-4 significantly correlated with the GDS-15 (*r*=-0.42). The combinations of other variables either significantly correlated weakly or did not significantly correlate, with the exception of the PCS-6 and KOOS-pain (r=-0.48).

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/29/2021.09.10.21262871/T3)

Table 3. 
Correlation between variables of psychological factors and confounders

In the comparison of psychological factors between men and women, women showed significantly higher values of the PCS-6 (15.0 [11.0–19.0] (median [interquartile range] vs. 13.5 [8.5–16.0]; *p*=0.03). The values of the PSEQ-4 (13.0 [12.0–17.0] vs. 14.5 [11.3–19.5]; *p*=0.24) and the GDS-15 (3.5 [2.0–5.0] vs. 3.0 [1.0– 6.0]; *p*=0.73) were not significantly different.

In the binary logistic regression analysis with IADL disability status as a dependent variable, IKES on the unaffected side was adopted as a confounder. IKES on both sides showed significant differences between the two groups, but the effect size of IKES on the unaffected side was greater than that on the affected side. Therefore, only IKES on the unaffected side was included to avoid multicollinearity. The PSEQ-4 (odds ratio [OR] =0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.82–0.99, *p*=0.02), UGS (OR=0.13, 95%CI=0.02–0.72, *p*=0.02) and sex (OR=0.38, 95%CI=0.15–0.96, *p*=0.04) were significantly independent variables (Table 4).

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/29/2021.09.10.21262871/T4)

Table 4. 
logistic regression model with the dependent variable as IADL disable or not.

## Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the psychological factors associated with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. The values of the PCS-6, PSEQ-4, and GDS-15 tools significantly differed between the IADL non-disabled and IADL-disabled groups. However, in the logistic regression analysis, which contained all the selected psychological factors and confounders, the PSEQ-4 was identified as having significant psychological assessment capacity in association with IADL disability.

In the logistic regression model, sex and UGS were also significant independent variables. Alexandre et al. [41] have shown that sex is a factor associated with IADL disability in older adults. Our results support this finding. A reduction in gait speed is also strongly associated with IADL disability in older adults [28,35,44]. Our current findings are consistent with those of our previous study, which showed gait speed to be a discriminatory factor for IADL disability in older adults with knee OA [23]. In this study, 49.1% of all participants had IADL disability, which was lower than in a previous study of older adults with joint pain (60.9%) [27]. In our study population, the main items pertaining to IADL disability were outdoor activities such as shopping (68.6%) and using transportation (50.6%), which require a degree of gait speed. Furthermore, because the effect size of UGS was the highest among all the measurements when compared between the two groups, it could be a crucial factor associated with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA.

Regarding psychological factors and disability in patients with chronic pain, the fear-avoidance model proposes that pain catastrophizing and depressive symptoms are some of the leading causes of disability [45]. Furthermore, self-efficacy is a mediator in the relationship between pain intensity and disability [46]. Our comparison of the two groups indicated that pain catastrophizing and depressive symptoms could be factors associated with IADL disability. However, based on the results of our multivariate analysis, self-efficacy, as assessed by the PSEQ-4, was the most important factor associated with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. A previous report involving patients with low back pain reported that the minimal important change using the PSEQ-4 was 1.5 points [47]. In our study results, as the median difference in the PSEQ-4 values between the two groups was 2.0 points, there were clinically significant differences between the two groups. In addition, the correlation between the PSEQ-4 and UGS was weak, and the PSEQ-4 values did not significantly differ between men and women. Therefore, these findings indicate that the PSEQ-4 is little influenced by demographics and motor functions and that pain self-efficacy, as assessed using the PSEQ-4, has a specific association with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA.

With respect to the relationship between pain self-efficacy and disability in patients with knee OA, Sinikallio et al. [12] suggested that self-efficacy assessed using the PSEQ was the only psychological factor associated with disability in multiple regression analysis that included demographics as confounders. Some cross-sectional studies have shown that self-efficacy, which partially includes pain elements, is a factor related to disability in patients with knee OA [14,15]. A cohort study of older adults with knee pain has reported that self-efficacy is a predictor of self-reported disability [13]. Two cross-sectional studies of patients with chronic lower back pain have also shown that self-efficacy related to pain is a factor related to disability [48,49]. Using a logistic regression analysis that included demographics and pain intensity as confounders, a previous cross-sectional study of older adults with chronic joint pain showed that self-efficacy is associated with IADL disability [27]. The results of the above studies are consistent with those of our study. Self-efficacy describes the confidence that a person has in their ability to achieve a desired outcome [50]. In patients with knee OA, those with high self-efficacy for controlling arthritis pain have higher pain thresholds than those with low self-efficacy [51]. Therefore, older adults with knee OA who have high self-efficacy might be considered more likely to not voluntarily restrict activities included in IADL, even if they have knee pain. Consequently, we considered self-efficacy, assessed using the PSEQ-4, associated with IADL disability, even after adjusting for other confounders.

This study has several limitations. First, since this was a cross-sectional study, causal relationships between psychological factors and IADL disability incidence could not be determined. Second, this study included patients with knee OA scheduled for TKA or UKA, who were in a different treatment situation compared with older adults with knee OA. Therefore, it might be difficult to generalize the results to older adults with early-stage knee OA or in a low pain status. In particular, awaiting surgery could affect pain intensity and psychological factors related to pain. Nonetheless, the average KOOS-pain score in this study population was not inferior to those in other studies [52]. The median PCS-6 and PSEQ-4 scores were also not inferior to those in previous studies in patients with chronic pain [31,32]. Third, because IADL disability was assessed using categorical variables as the dependent variable in our logistic regression analyses, we could not identify the effect of each factor on IADL disability. However, when comparing the two groups, the effect sizes of the variables that were significantly related to IADL disability in logistic regression models were approximately the same. This study did not aim to predict IADL disability using assessments; however, it was conducted with the conviction that greater knowledge regarding psychological factors in older adults with knee OA is likely to aid in understanding the risk of IADL disability or deterioration.

## Conclusion

Regarding psychological factors, assessing self-efficacy using the PSEQ-4 was associated with IADL disability even after adjusting for confounders. Sex and gait speed were also associated with IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. Our study demonstrated the importance of assessing self-efficacy, using the PSEQ-4, as the factor most associated with the presence of IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. Future studies are necessary to elucidate the mechanism through which self-efficacy is related to IADL disability in older adults with knee OA. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to identify predictors of the development of IADL disability in older adults with knee OA.

## Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Nanjo, K., upon reasonable request. 

## Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

## Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [K.N.], upon reasonable request.

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank D. Kurihara, K. Imahira and K. Suda for their cooperation with data collection.

## Footnotes

*   We have changed abstract. The format also has been changed. 

*   Received September 10, 2021.
*   Revision received December 27, 2021.
*   Accepted December 29, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Bijlsma JW, Berenbaum F, Lafeber FP. Osteoarthritis: an update with relevance for clinical practice. Lancet. 2011;377(9783):2115–26.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60243-2&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21684382&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000292117800033&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2.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. 2016;388(10053):1545–1602.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27733282&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

3.  3.Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–186.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access\_num=10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=5349366&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1969E667100003&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–919.
    
    

5.  5.Fried LP, Kronmal RA, Newman AB, et al. Risk factors for 5-year mortality in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. JAMA. 1998;279(8):585–592.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.279.8.585&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9486752&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000072041900033&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Scott WK, Macera CA, Cornman CB, et al. Functional health status as a predictor of mortality in men and women over 65. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(3):291–296.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00365-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9120528&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997WQ59200010&link_type=ISI) 

7.  7.Rajan KB, Hebert LE, Scherr PA, et al. Disability in basic and instrumental activities of daily living is associated with faster rate of decline in cognitive function of older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(5):624–630.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/gerona/gls208&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23105042&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000317538900016&link_type=ISI) 

8.  8.Pereira D, Peleteiro B, Araújo J, et al. The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(11):1270–1285.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.joca.2011.08.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21907813&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000297963600002&link_type=ISI) 

9.  9.van Dijk GM, Veenhof C, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Limitations in activities in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: the relationship with body functions, comorbidity and cognitive functioning. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(20):1685–1691.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09638280902736809&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19479564&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

10. 10.Odole A, Ekediegwu E, Ekechukwu END, et al. Correlates and predictors of pain intensity and physical function among individuals with chronic knee osteoarthritis in Nigeria. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;39:150–156.
    
    

11. 11.Somers TJ, Keefe FJ, Pells JJ, et al. Pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear in osteoarthritis patients: relationships to pain and disability. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37(5):863–872.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.05.009&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19041218&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000266218400009&link_type=ISI) 

12. 12.Sinikallio SH, Helminen EE, Valjakka AL, et al. Multiple psychological factors are associated with poorer functioning in a sample of community-dwelling knee osteoarthritis patients. J Clin Rheumatol. 2014;20(5):261–267.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25036567&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

13. 13.Rejeski WJ, Miller ME, Foy C, et al. Self-efficacy and the progression of functional limitations and self-reported disability in older adults with knee pain. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56(5):S261–S265.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/geronb/56.5.S261&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11522807&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170750500008&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Creamer P, Lethbridge-Cejku M, Hochberg MC. Factors associated with functional impairment in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(5):490–496.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/rheumatology/39.5.490&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10852978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087754200007&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Maly MR, Costigan PA, Olney SJ. Determinants of self-report outcome measures in people with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(1):96–104.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16401446&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234670500017&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16.Zambon S, Siviero P, Denkinger M, et al. Role of osteoarthritis, comorbidity, and pain in determining functional limitations in older populations: European project on osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(6):801–810.
    
    

17. 17.Dixon KE, Keefe FJ, Scipio CD, et al. Psychological interventions for arthritis pain management in adults: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2007;26(3):241–250.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0278-6133.26.3.241&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17500610&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246569100001&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.Bennell KL, Ahamed Y, Jull G, et al. Physical therapist-delivered pain coping skills training and exercise for knee osteoarthritis: randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(5):590–602.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

19. 19.Barberger-Gateau P, Rainville C, Letenneur L, et al. A hierarchical model of domains of disablement in the elderly: a longitudinal approach. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(7):308–317.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/096382800296665&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10877484&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087532200002&link_type=ISI) 

20. 20.Edjolo A, Proust-Lima C, Delva F, et al. Natural history of dependency in the elderly: a 24-year population-based study using a longitudinal item response theory model. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(4):277–285.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwv223&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26825927&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

21. 21.Dunlop DD, Semanik P, Song J, et al. Risk factors for functional decline in older adults with arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(4):1274–1282.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.20968&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15818691&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228688200034&link_type=ISI) 

22. 22.George LK, Ruiz D, Sloan FA. The effects of total knee arthroplasty on physical functioning in the older population. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(10):3166–3171.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.23888&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18821689&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000260024400026&link_type=ISI) 

23. 23.Nanjo K, Ikeda T, Nagashio N, et al. Gait speed and pain status as discriminatory factors for instrumental activities of daily living disability in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2021;21(8):683–688.
    
    

24. 24.Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29(8):1039–1049.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.1780290816&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3741515&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986D612900016&link_type=ISI) 

25. 25.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–349.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18313558&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000253998200007&link_type=ISI) 

26. 26.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3558716&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1987G855900002&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Hermsen LA, Leone SS, Smalbrugge M, et al. Frequency, severity and determinants of functional limitations in older adults with joint pain and comorbidity: results of a cross-sectional study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2014;59(1):98–106.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.archger.2014.02.006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24726180&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

28. 28.Lee MC, Hsu CC, Tsai YF, et al. Criterion-referenced values of grip strength and usual gait speed using instrumental activities of daily living disability as the criterion. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2018;41(1):14–19.
    
    

29. 29.Nishigami T, Mibu A, Tanaka K, et al. Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of short forms of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in participants with musculoskeletal pain: a cross-sectional study. J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(2):351–356.
    
    

30. 30.Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(4):524–532.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037//1040-3590.7.4.524&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995TL18000014&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.McWilliams LA, Kowal J, Wilson KG. Development and evaluation of short forms of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(9):1342–1349.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ejp.665&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25766681&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

32. 32.Adachi T, Enomoto K, Yamada K, et al. Evaluating the psychometric properties of two-item and four-item short forms of the Japanese Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: a cross-sectional study. J Anesth. 2019;33(1):58–66.
    
    

33. 33.Nicholas MK. The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account. Eur J Pain. 2007;11(2):153–163.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16446108&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000243741000004&link_type=ISI) 

34. 34.Sugishita K, Sugishita M, Hemmi I, et al. A Validity and reliability study of the Japanese Version of the Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (GDS-15-J). Clin Gerontol. 2017;40(4):233–240.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

35. 35.Zhang L, Guo L, Wu H, et al. Role of physical performance measures for identifying functional disability among Chinese older adults: data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4):e0215693.
    
    

36. 36.Kauppila AM, Kyllonen E, Mikkonen P, et al. Disability in end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(5):370–380.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09638280801976159&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18608423&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000264098200004&link_type=ISI) 

37. 37.Shinkai S, Watanabe S, Kumagai S, et al. Walking speed as a good predictor for the onset of functional dependence in a Japanese rural community population. Age Ageing. 2000;29(5):441–446.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ageing/29.5.441&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11108417&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165456900026&link_type=ISI) 

38. 38.Nakamura N, Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(5):516–523.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00776-011-0112-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21766211&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

39. 39.Katoh M, Yamasaki H. Comparison of reliability of isometric leg muscle strength measurements made using a hand-held dynamometer with and without a restraining belt. J Phys Ther Sci. 2009;21(1):37–42.
    
    

40. 40.Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 1995.
    
    

41. 41.Alexandre TaS, Corona LP, Nunes DP, et al. Disability in instrumental activities of daily living among older adults: gender differences. Rev Saude Publica. 2014;48(3):379–389.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1590/S0034-8910.2014048004754&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25119933&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

42. 42.Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, et al. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373– 1379.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8970487&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996VY92400008&link_type=ISI) 

43. 43.Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710–718.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwk052&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17182981&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244655200014&link_type=ISI) 

44. 44.Donoghue OA, Savva GM, Cronin H, et al. Using timed up and go and usual gait speed to predict incident disability in daily activities among community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(10):1954–1961.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.apmr.2014.06.008&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

45. 45.Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85(3):317–332.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00242-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10781906&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000086745500002&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Arnstein P. The mediation of disability by self efficacy in different samples of chronic pain patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(17):794–801.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/09638280050200296&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11194620&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165595200006&link_type=ISI) 

47. 47.Chiarotto A, Vanti C, Cedraschi C, et al. Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and short forms in patients with chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2016;17(6):707–718.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

48. 48.Ayre M, Tyson GA. The role of self-efficacy and fear-avoidance beliefs in the prediction of disability. Aust Psychol. 2001;36(3):250–253.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/00050060108259663&link_type=DOI) 

49. 49. Costa LaC, Maher CG, McAuley JH, et al. Self-efficacy is more important than fear of movement in mediating the relationship between pain and disability in chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2011;15(2):213–219.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.06.014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20655254&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000286592300015&link_type=ISI) 

50. 50.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=847061&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1977CY52700002&link_type=ISI) 

51. 51.Keefe FJ, Lefebvre JC, Maixner W, et al. Self-efficacy for arthritis pain: relationship to perception of thermal laboratory pain stimuli. Arthritis Care Res. 1997;10(3):177–184.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/art.1790100305&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9335629&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997XD35100004&link_type=ISI) 

52. 52.Collins NJ, Prinsen CA, Christensen R, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1317–1329.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F29%2F2021.09.10.21262871.atom) 

53. 53.Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2012.