Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 13;20(11):e0336663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336663

Exploring physical activity and patient perceptions in knee osteoarthritis: A mixed-methods study

Moayad Subahi 1,*, Fahda Alshaikh 1, Eyad Dahlawi 1, Feras Zafar 1, Tamim Alsulimany 1, Nawaf Alnefaie 1, Abdulrahman Almalki 1
Editor: Domiziano Tarantino,2
PMCID: PMC12614597  PMID: 41231830

Abstract

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a prevalent condition that reduces physical function and quality of life. Physical activity is foundational to KOA management; however, patient engagement and perceptions of treatment remain underexplored, particularly in Middle Eastern populations. This study evaluated physical activity (PA) levels among individuals with KOA and explored their perceptions, awareness, and experiences with management strategies, especially physical therapy. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) from 60 adults with physician-diagnosed KOA (mean age 55.5 ± 6.4 years; 50% female) recruited from clinics and community programs in Saudi Arabia. Semi-structured interviews with 24 purposively selected participants further explored experiences and perceptions. Descriptive statistics summarized quantitative data, and thematic analysis guided qualitative interpretation. Ninety percent of participants recorded low PA levels (≤600 MET-min/week), with only 10% achieving moderate or high activity levels. Qualitative themes revealed multiple barriers including emotional distress, logistical difficulties, and misconceptions about KOA as well as facilitators such as family support and patient education. Integration of findings highlighted how contextual and psychosocial factors influence PA engagement. Adults with KOA in this study reported markedly low levels of PA, shaped by cultural, psychological, and environmental factors. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing these barriers through patient-centred education and improved access to physical therapy.

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic degenerative joint disease characterized by progressive loss of articular cartilage, subchondral bone changes, and functional decline [1,2]. It is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide, with global prevalence estimates ranging from 16% in adults over 45 years to more than 22% in those aged 60 years and older [3]. In Saudi Arabia, recent community-based studies report KOA prevalence rates of approximately 30–40% among older adults, reflecting a major public health concern [4,5]. The etiology of KOA is multifactorial, involving mechanical overload, obesity, genetic predisposition, and inflammatory processes, which together contribute to joint degeneration and pain [6,7].

Contemporary management of KOA emphasizes non-pharmacological strategies—particularly education, weight management, and exercise/physical therapy—alongside pharmacological options and, when indicated, surgery, in line with recent international guidelines (e.g., NICE, EULAR, OARSI). Choice of treatment should reflect disease severity, comorbidities, and patient preferences, and prioritize sustained physical activity and self-management support [810].

Physical therapy is essential in managing KOA, improving joint mobility, strengthening the muscles around the knee, and educating patients on self-management techniques [11]. Several studies have demonstrated that physical therapy can significantly reduce pain and enhance joint function in patients with KOA [12,13]. Modalities such as therapeutic exercises, manual therapy, heat therapy, electrical stimulation, and assistive devices are key components of effective physical therapy interventions [14,15]. Strengthening exercises, in particular, are essential in these programs, targeting muscles around the knee joint to promote stability, range of motion, and cardiovascular fitness [16].

Physical activity (PA) is also integral to KOA management, reducing pain, improving joint function, and enhancing quality of life [17,18]. Despite its importance, many individuals with KOA remain insufficiently active due to barriers such as pain, fear of exacerbating symptoms, and a lack of motivation or accessible exercise facilities [19,20]. Studies emphasize the need for tailored interventions to address these challenges, including educational programs, guided exercise plans, and support from healthcare providers [21,22]. By overcoming these barriers, patients can engage in regular PA, which is crucial for slowing disease progression and improving long-term outcomes [23].

In Saudi Arabia, lower public awareness of KOA including limited understanding of mechanisms, risk factors, and evidence-based care has been repeatedly documented. A study found that only 37% correctly identified core KOA mechanisms, with lower educational attainment associated with poorer knowledge [24]. Similar patterns were observed in another study, where most respondents demonstrated poor or fair awareness [25]. These findings indicate a graded education–awareness relationship and highlight the need for targeted, culturally sensitive education campaigns (e.g., clinics, community programs, and vetted digital platforms) to counter misconceptions and support earlier, active management.

Addressing psychosocial burden is critical: people with KOA frequently report anxiety, depressive symptoms, fear of movement, and reduced self-efficacy, all of which are associated with lower activity and worse function [2629]. Education, family support, and therapeutic alliance can mitigate these factors and improve engagement with activity-based care [30,31]. Integrating psychosocial support within multidisciplinary management may therefore facilitate adherence to recommended exercise and daily physical activity [32]. Healthcare providers may also face challenges managing KOA due to patients’ lack of awareness and misconceptions about the disease. Studies maintained that uncertainty among clinicians results from inconsistent treatment strategies and patient distrust [3335]. This highlights the importance of providing comprehensive education to patients throughout the conservative treatment process. Additionally, fostering trust and clear communication between patients and providers is essential for improving adherence to therapy and achieving better outcomes [36]. The literature reveals significant gaps in awareness and understanding of KOA, particularly in Saudi Arabia, which hinder effective management and highlight the need for targeted educational efforts. These efforts should aim to empower patients with knowledge, address physical and psychological barriers, and promote evidence-based practices to mitigate the burden of KOA while paving the way for improved multidisciplinary care.

Despite guideline consensus on the centrality of physical activity and physical therapy, context-specific evidence from Middle Eastern settings remains limited, particularly regarding how cultural, social, and psychological factors shape engagement with activity-based care. This study therefore employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to (i) quantify PA levels among adults with KOA and (ii) explore their perceptions, awareness, and experiences of KOA physical therapy management in Saudi Arabia.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, consisting of two consecutive phases: (i) a quantitative survey of PA levels using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form (IPAQ-SF), followed by (ii) a qualitative phase using semi-structured interviews to explore patient perceptions and experiences. The design was chosen to enable statistical description of PA levels and to provide deeper explanatory insights into the quantitative findings through thematic analysis of interview data. The study was conducted between 25/Oct/2023 to 25/Feb/2024 in Saudi Arabia.

Research paradigm and reflexivity

The study was underpinned by a pragmatic paradigm, which guided the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to best address the research objectives. Pragmatism emphasizes the research question as central and allows for methodological pluralism, enabling integration of numerical data with patient narratives to generate contextually relevant insights [37]. Reflexivity was maintained throughout, with the research team consisting of physiotherapists and academic researchers trained in musculoskeletal rehabilitation [38]. To minimize bias, interviewers acknowledged their clinical background, used open-ended questions, and engaged in peer debriefing to reflect on how their perspectives might influence data interpretation. Reporting adhered to COREQ recommendations [39].

Participants

Quantitative phase.

A total of 60 adults with KOA were recruited through purposive and convenience sampling from physiotherapy clinics and community programs. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 45 years or older with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of KOA, as per radiographic or clinical evaluation, who could provide informed consent and participate in the assessments. Participants were required to have been under OA management for at least six months to ensure sufficient experience with treatment modalities.

Sample size.

We did not perform an a-priori power calculation because the quantitative phase was exploratory and designed to provide descriptive estimates to inform the qualitative phase. A target of at least 60 participants was set, which provides acceptable precision for proportions and continuous summaries in clinic-based KOA samples. This sample size was also sufficient to support exploratory subgroup contrasts (e.g., by sex) and to guide purposive selection for the qualitative interviews.

Qualitative phase.

From the survey participants, 24 were purposively selected from the quantitative cohort using maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in age, gender, and PA levels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached, defined as the point when no new themes emerged across three consecutive interviews. No prior relationships existed between the researcher and participants.

Exclusion criteria for both components included individuals with cognitive impairments, coexisting neurological disorders, or other severe comorbidities that could interfere with participation. Participants who agreed to participate received the participant information sheet and consent form, completed before the data collection began. Descriptive data of the 24 qualitative participants, including age, gender, BMI category, and number of physiotherapy sessions, were summarized to provide contextual understanding. Each participant was assigned a code (e.g., P01, P02) used when quoting in the results to maintain anonymity while ensuring traceability of responses.

Quantitative data collection

Physical activity was measured using the IPAQ-SF [40], a validated tool for estimating weekly activity in METS-min/week [41,42]. The IPAQ-SF records frequency and duration of walking, moderate activity, vigorous activity, and sitting over the previous 7 days. Responses were converted into metabolic equivalent minutes per week (MET-min/week) using the IPAQ scoring protocol. Participants were categorized as having low (≤600 METS-min/week), moderate (600–3000 METS-min/week), or high (>3000 METS-min/week) PA levels according to the international cut-offs and threshold that has been reported in regional studies [4347]. Data were collected before face-to-face qualitative interviews or via structured phone interviews.

Qualitative data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants in Arabic to explore their experiences, perceptions, and barriers to OA management. An interview guide with open-ended questions was used, developed by the research team based on literature and clinical experience [25,47,48]. Interviews were conducted in Arabic by trained physiotherapists with qualitative research experience. Interviews were conducted in person or by phone, depending on participant preference, and lasted between 30–60 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English by a bilingual researcher, and a second bilingual team member checked translations for accuracy and anonymized before analysis.

To minimize bias, interviewers reflected on their clinical background and relationship to participants prior to and during interviews. Reflexivity and transparency were maintained in line with the COREQ checklist. Interviews continued until thematic saturation was reached, defined as no new themes emerging across three consecutive interviews [49].

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed in SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations for normally distributed variables; medians and interquartile ranges for skewed variables) were used to summarize participant demographics and PA levels. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for key estimates. In addition, exploratory comparisons were performed to examine potential associations between PA levels and participant characteristics. Mann–Whitney U tests were used for sex-based differences, χ² tests for categorical variables (e.g., PA category by sex or education), and Spearman’s rank correlation for continuous relationships (e.g., PA levels with BMI or age). Given the study’s exploratory design, emphasis was placed on effect sizes and CIs, and p-values were interpreted cautiously.

The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-step approach [50]. Transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) for management and coding. An inductive coding strategy was applied: initial open codes were generated from participants’ narratives, codes were grouped into broader categories, and final themes were developed through iterative comparison. Two members of the research team independently coded a subset of transcripts, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion to enhance reliability.

Credibility was supported through peer debriefing, triangulation with quantitative findings, and reflexive memo writing throughout analysis. The research team, consisting of physiotherapists and academic researchers, reflected on their professional background and potential influence on data interpretation. Transcripts were read and re-read for familiarization, and initial codes were generated inductively, focusing on semantic and latent content. These codes were then collated into themes, which were reviewed, refined, and discussed among the research team until consensus was reached.

Themes emerged inductively from the data, reflecting participants’ lived experiences. Each theme was illustrated with quotes linked to individual participants using pseudonyms (e.g., P01, female, age 55). Reflexivity was maintained throughout the process, with researchers documenting assumptions and reflecting on their influence on data interpretation [51]. As a team of rehabilitation scientists and physiotherapists based in Saudi Arabia, we acknowledged our expertise in physical therapy and cultural familiarity (e.g., prayer practices), and actively sought diverse perspectives to mitigate potential bias and ensured that thematic analysis remained grounded in participants’ own words rather than preconceived assumptions. Interviews continued until thematic saturation was achieved.

The trustworthiness of the qualitative findings was ensured through targeted strategies [52]. Credibility was enhanced by triangulating qualitative themes with quantitative physical activity data from the IPAQ-sf, validating participants’ experiences. Dependability was achieved by documenting Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis process, providing a clear audit trail. Confirmability was supported by having two researchers independently code transcripts and resolve discrepancies, minimizing bias. Transferability was addressed through detailed descriptions of the 24 diverse participants and the Saudi Arabian context, enabling applicability assessments. These steps ensured the findings’ rigour and authenticity. Reporting followed the COREQ checklist to ensure transparency and comprehensiveness [39].

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Local Committee for Biological and Medical Ethics at Umm Al-Qura University (NJDD011023). All participants provided written informed consent before participating. Participants who could not attend face-to-face interviews, a verbal consent was recorded during the call. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured through secure data handling and coding systems. Participants could withdraw at any time without impacting their medical care or legal rights, with their data promptly destroyed upon withdrawal.

Results

Quantitative results

Descriptive statistics.

The study aimed to evaluate physical activity levels among individuals with KOA and explore their perceptions, awareness, and experiences with treatment options, particularly physical therapy. Sixty participants were included (50% female; mean age 55.5 ± 6.4 years, range 45–65). The mean BMI was 27.8 ± 5.8 kg/m2 (range 19.5–47.3). Moreover, participants attended an average of 10.8 physiotherapy sessions (SD = 5.7), ranging from 3 to 20 sessions. Participants demographics summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant characteristics (n = 60).
Variable Mean ± SD/ n (%)
Age (years) 55.5 ± 6.4 (range: 45–65)
Gender Male: 30 (50.0%)
Female: 30 (50.0%)
BMI (kg/m²) 27.8 ± 5.8
Normal: 21 (35.0%)
Overweight: 22 (36.6%)
Obese: 17 (28.3%)
Education Bachelor’s degree: 17 (45.0%)
Diploma: 12 (20.0%)
Master’s degree: 10 (16.7%)
High school: 8 (13.3%)
PhD: 3 (5.0%)

Values are presented as mean ± SD for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables.

Physical activity level.

Physical activity levels using the standard IPAQ-SF thresholds shows that the majority of participants were classified as Low PA, with smaller proportions achieving moderate or high activity. Exact counts and percentages are presented in Table 2. Moreover, comparisons of PA levels by sex, BMI, and education level showed no statistically significant differences. The distribution of PA categories did not differ between men and women (χ² = 3.30, p = 0.19), and Spearman’s correlation between BMI and MET-min/week was not significant (ρ = –0.16, p = 0.23). Education level was also not associated with PA category (χ² = 5.34, p = 0.72). These analyses are considered exploratory and should be interpreted with caution given the sample size.

Table 2. Physical activity level results.
Physical activity level n (%)
Low (≤600 METS-min/week) 54 (90%)
Moderate (600–3000 METS-min/week) 4 (6.6%)
High (>3000 METS-min/week) 2 (3.3%)

Qualitative results

The qualitative study resulted in six themes developed through the thematic analysis: The beginning of the patient’s journey, Treatment, Providing care for individuals with KOA, The patient’s therapeutic culture, Patient environment, Challenges and Barriers. Table 3. presents the themes, sub-categories, and illustrative quotes from patient interviews. The qualitative component highlighted the underlying reasons for these low activity levels, revealing multifaceted barriers. Emotional distress, often associated with chronic pain and reduced mobility, was frequently cited as a deterrent to maintaining regular activity. Logistical challenges, such as difficulty accessing physical therapy services and a lack of transportation, further compounded these barriers. Participants also expressed limited awareness about the benefits of exercise and common misconceptions about KOA management, leading to a reliance on passive treatments and avoidance of physical activity.

Table 3. Themes, sub-categories, and illustrative quotes from patient interviews.

Theme Category Illustrative Quote
Theme 1: The Beginning of the Patient’s Journey The Onset of the Disease “I could not bend my knee, especially during prayer; I could not sit properly in prayer.” (P02, Female, 55)
Decision-Making “Honestly, I prefer physical therapy over surgery; surgery should be the last option.” (P07, Male, 59)
Theme 2: Treatment Patient’s Preference for Therapeutic Solutions “I prefer to do physical therapy even if it takes longer.” (P05, Female, 58)
Interest in Returning to Life “Thank God, I continue to take one ibuprofen pill a day and one vitamin B12 pill.” (P11, Male, 53)
Exercise “My experience with the exercises from the physiotherapist has been very satisfying. The pain has decreased a lot.” (P14, Female, 60)
Theme 3: Providing Care for Individuals with KOA Physical Therapy: Perceptions and Reality “The doctor said the surgery was successful, but 70% of the recovery depends on physical therapy.” (P01, Male, 61)
Access and Quality of Care “The doctor would call me online and conduct a virtual physical therapy session.” (P12, Female, 57)
From Goals to Gains: Patient’s Progress and Outcomes “After physical therapy, I felt relieved, and I was able to walk again.” (P08, Male, 62)
Theme 4: The Patient’s Therapeutic Culture Curiosity and Awareness: Understanding KOA “Is this surgery beneficial or not? Have many people been able to walk perfectly?” (P17, Female, 54)
Options and Experiences: Perspectives on Care “They just give brief instructions and don’t follow up on the exercises.” (P20, Male, 56)
Theme 5: Patient Environment Community Support: A Pillar of Healing “My friends, my husband, and my children help me.” (P03, Female, 59)
Myths and Misconceptions: Navigating Patient Advice “How does physical therapy work for KOA? Can the cracking sound go away?” (P16, Male, 52)
Theme 6: Challenges and Barriers Other Diseases and Injuries “I had an accident 25 years ago that caused complications in my knee.” (P04, Male, 63)
Obstacles and Emotions “Living with KOA significantly affected my mental and emotional health.” (P09, Female, 55)

Despite these barriers, the qualitative analysis also uncovered facilitators that encouraged engagement in PA. Support from family members and healthcare providers played a significant role in motivating participants to adhere to treatment plans and exercise routines. Additionally, participants who received tailored education about KOA and the role of exercise reported greater confidence in their ability to manage symptoms through activity. Those with access to consistent PT services noted significant improvements in pain, mobility, and overall quality of life, emphasizing the importance of structured, guided interventions.

Integrating the quantitative and qualitative findings, this study highlights a critical need to address the barriers to physical activity in KOA populations. While quantitative data highlight the severity of inactivity, qualitative insights provide a deeper understanding of patients’ emotional, logistical, and educational challenges. Tailored interventions prioritizing patient education, emotional support, and accessible physical therapy services may improve PA levels and overall disease management.

Theme 1: The beginning of the patient’s journey.

The onset of KOA marked a significant disruption in participants’ lives, as chronic knee pain began to impede daily activities imbued with personal and cultural significance. One participant described difficulty performing daily religious practices: “I could not bend my knee during prayer” (P02, Female, 55), highlighting how the condition challenged their ability to engage in religious practices central to life in Saudi Arabia. This physical limitation often triggered a cascade of emotional distress and reduced quality of life, prompting participants to seek medical advice. Consultations with orthopaedic specialists confirmed the diagnosis and introduced treatment options, with physical therapy frequently recommended as a first step. When choosing a path forward, participants leaned toward conservative approaches over surgery. As one explained, “Honestly, I personally prefer physical therapy over surgery. I’d rather avoid surgery,” reflecting a common fear of invasive procedures and a hope that physical therapy could restore function less disruptively. These early experiences reveal how physical symptoms, cultural priorities, and treatment preferences shaped participants’ initial steps in managing KOA, setting the stage for their engagement or lack of physical activity.

Theme 2: Treatment.

Participants’ approaches to treatment were shaped by a complex mix of preferences, practical considerations, and aspirations to reclaim their pre-OA lives. Many expressed a strong inclination toward physical therapy over surgical interventions, driven by both psychological comfort and perceived effectiveness. Many participants expressed a strong preference for conservative treatment: “I prefer physical therapy over surgery” (P07, Male, 59). This highlights a deliberate choice to prioritize less invasive methods despite the time commitment, reflecting a broader reluctance to embrace surgery unless necessary. For those who adhered to treatment plans often combining medication and physical therapy the rewards were evident. Another participant noted, “Thank God, I continue to take one ibuprofen pill a day and one vitamin B12 pill,” suggesting that a manageable regimen supported their persistence.

Exercise, a cornerstone of physical therapy, elicited varied responses. For some, it was transformative: “My experience with the exercises given to me by the physiotherapist at the hospital has been very satisfying. The pain has significantly decreased and improved a lot.” This positive outcome highlights how tailored therapeutic routines can bridge the gap between sedentary behaviour (noted in 90% of participants with ≤600METS-min/week) and improved function. However, logistical barriers tempered the enthusiasm of others, who found attending sessions inconvenient and yearned for at-home alternatives. This tension between the benefits of exercise and the challenges of accessing it points to a critical need for flexible, patient-centred solutions to enhance adherence and activity levels.

Theme 3: Providing care for individuals with KOA.

Participants’ experiences with care delivery, particularly physical therapy, revealed a spectrum of perceptions that evolved with exposure to treatment. Initially, some believed in disbelief or confusion about its efficacy, but tangible improvements often shifted their views. One participant reflected, “The doctor said the surgery was successful, but most recovery depends on physical therapy” (P01, Male, 61). This insight, gained post-surgery, highlights the pivotal role of physical therapy in achieving functional outcomes, reinforcing its value beyond initial expectations. Access to quality care further shaped experiences. Innovative solutions like virtual sessions were a boon for some: “The doctor would call me online and conduct a virtual physical therapy session”, offering flexibility amid logistical challenges like transportation or long wait times. However, inconsistent communication and appointment delays frustrated others, highlighting disparities in care delivery.

When physical therapy aligned with participants’ goals, the gains were palpable. “After undergoing physical therapy, I felt relieved, and I was able to walk on my leg again,” one participant shared, illustrating how consistent engagement could restore mobility and alleviate pain. However, missed sessions or neglected home exercises disrupted progress, emphasizing that the benefits of care hinge on sustained participation. These findings suggest that while physical therapy holds promise for improving low activity levels, its success depends on overcoming barriers to access and fostering patient-provider collaboration.

Theme 4: The patient’s therapeutic culture.

Participants’ therapeutic culture of knowledge, curiosity, and attitudes toward KOA management revealed gaps and glimmers of awareness that influenced their treatment journeys. Some participants expressed uncertainty about treatment effectiveness, asking, “Is this surgery beneficial?”, this curiosity reflects an active desire to understand their condition, yet it often coexisted with limited baseline knowledge about KOA and its management. Physical therapy, however, emerged as a point of recognition for some, who valued its role in strengthening muscles and stabilizing joints, even if their understanding was incomplete.

Experiences with healthcare systems further shaped perspectives. Dissatisfaction surfaced when care felt cursory: “They just give brief instructions and don’t even follow up on some of the exercises,” one participant lamented, pointing to a perceived lack of personalization in public settings. In contrast, those who received detailed explanations or accessed private care expressed greater satisfaction, suggesting that quality of interaction influences trust and engagement. Despite these challenges, hope persisted: “I believe consistent physical therapy can improve my quality of life,” another noted, indicating that education and positive care experiences could empower patients to embrace evidence-based practices over time. This theme highlights a critical need for targeted education to bridge knowledge gaps and align therapeutic culture with effective OA management.

Theme 5: Patient environment.

The patient’s environment of family, friends, and community served as both a pillar of support and a source of complexity in their recovery journey. Emotional and practical encouragement from loved ones was invaluable, family support was frequently highlighted: “My husband and children help me” (P03, Female, 59), emphasizing how social networks mitigated isolation and supported adherence to treatment plans. Community interactions, however, introduced a mix of helpful and misguided advice. Traditional remedies, passed down through generations, held appeal for some, yet often lacked evidence. Another participant questioned prevailing myths: “How does physical therapy work, especially for KOA? And how can cracking sound go away?” This reflects a broader struggle to navigate well-intentioned but unsupported suggestions, such as dietary fixes or unproven treatments, which sometimes affect evidence-based options.

These environmental dynamics illuminate why many participants remained sedentary. Community misconceptions reinforced avoidance of activity, while supportive networks offered a counterbalance that encouraged persistence. Addressing this duality requires education that extends beyond the individual to their social circles, ensuring that support aligns with clinical recommendations and fosters greater physical activity engagement.

Theme 6: Challenges and barriers.

Living with KOA presented multifaceted challenges that compounded physical limitations with emotional and logistical hurdles. Coexisting conditions amplified difficulties: “I had an accident 25 years ago that caused complications in my knee,” one participant explained, illustrating how past injuries or comorbidities complicated recovery and deterred activity. External disruptions, like the COVID-19 pandemic, further derailed care, forcing delays or abandonment of therapy sessions and exacerbating sedentary tendencies (reflected in the 90% low activity rate).

The emotional toll was profound, as one participant stated: “Living with KOA affected my mental and emotional health” (P09, Female, 55). Another participant confessed, capturing the frustration, anxiety, and isolation that stemmed from restricted mobility. This psychological burden often reinforced a cycle of inactivity, as pain and fear of worsening symptoms deterred exercise. These barriers may highlight the need for holistic interventions integrating emotional support, tailored education, and accessible care to break the sedentary pattern and improve outcomes. Participants’ narratives reveal that overcoming these challenges is not just a physical attempt but a profoundly personal one, requiring a biopsychosocial approach to OA management.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative results

The qualitative themes provided explanatory depth to the quantitative finding that 90% of participants reported low PA (<600 MET-min/week). The absence of significant associations between PA levels and sex, BMI, or education in exploratory analyses suggests that demographic factors alone do not explain the sedentary patterns observed. Instead, participants’ narratives highlighted how psychosocial distress and logistical barriers (Theme 6) discouraged engagement, while misconceptions and limited awareness (Theme 4) reinforced inactivity. At the same time, supportive family environments (Theme 5) and positive experiences with physical therapy (Themes 2 and 3) facilitated motivation and adherence for a small subgroup who achieved moderate-to-high PA levels. This convergence demonstrates how personal, social, and cultural influences rather than demographic characteristics primarily shaped PA behaviour. Such integration highlights the value of a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, where qualitative insights contextualize and expand quantitative results [53]. Collectively, the findings emphasize the importance of culturally sensitive, patient-centered strategies to address barriers and support sustained PA in individuals with KOA.

Discussion

This mixed-methods study explored PA levels and patient experiences in KOA management in Saudi Arabia. The findings emphasize the substantial gap in adherence to PA guidelines, with 90% of participants classified as having low PA levels. This highlights a critical area for intervention in KOA care. The barriers identified in the qualitative analysis align with existing literature, emphasizing the role of emotional distress, logistical challenges, and limited awareness in hindering physical activity [54,55]. Participants frequently reported that chronic pain, reduced mobility, and misconceptions about KOA management contributed to their sedentary behaviour. These findings are consistent with global evidence highlighting fear of pain, low confidence, and limited support as key barriers to PA in KOA [20,56]. However, context-specific themes such as prayer and reliance on family advice illustrate the cultural uniqueness of our cohort. International guidelines emphasize structured exercise, weight management, and education as first-line strategies [2,9,57], but implementation in Saudi Arabia must account for these cultural factors to improve adherence. In addition, the findings reinforce the importance of addressing psychological and educational aspects alongside physical symptoms to improve patient outcomes.

Although equal numbers of male and female were included, no significant gender-based differences in PA were observed. Studies suggested that women reported greater logistical barriers (e.g., access to facilities), while men more often emphasized fear of worsening symptoms [58,59]. Similarly, BMI and education were not significantly associated with PA, suggesting that psychosocial and cultural influences outweighed demographic factors in shaping PA behaviours.

Notably, the study highlights facilitators that can enhance PA engagement. Support from family members and healthcare providers emerged as a significant motivator, suggesting that a collaborative approach involving the patient’s social network could yield positive results. Tailored education about the benefits of PA and accessible physical therapy services were also identified as key enablers of that may improve PA levels. These findings align with the biopsychosocial model of care, which advocates for a holistic approach to managing chronic conditions like KOA.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings provides robust evidence for the development of targeted interventions. For instance, implementing community-based education programs to address misconceptions and increase awareness about KOA management could empower patients to take an active role in their care. Similarly, expanding access to physical therapy services, particularly in underserved areas, could help overcome logistical barriers and improve adherence to exercise regimens.

Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of tailored, multifaceted interventions that address the unique barriers and facilitators identified in this study. Longitudinal studies examining the impact of such interventions on physical activity levels, pain management, and quality of life in KOA patients would further strengthen the evidence base.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size for the quantitative and qualitative components was relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The study was conducted in a single geographic region, and cultural factors specific to Saudi Arabia may influence the experiences and perceptions of participants. Second, the study’s cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences regarding the relationship between identified barriers and PA levels. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore these dynamics over time. The quantitative phase did not use an a-priori power calculation and was estimation-focused; accordingly statistical tests are interpreted as exploratory. Nevertheless, the achieved sample provided acceptable precision for the study’s descriptive aims and informed the qualitative sampling and interpretation. The reliance on self-reported measures for PA levels, such as the IPAQ-sf, may introduce recall bias, potentially affecting the accuracy of the results. While our findings provide insight into Saudi adults with KOA, they may not be directly transferable to other populations without cultural adaptation.

Conclusion

Integrating PA-level assessment with qualitative insights offers a robust understanding of the challenges and facilitators in KOA management. Addressing barriers through tailored interventions that include education, emotional support, and accessible physical therapy services may support the adherence to PA and overall quality of life in KOA patients. This study highlights the need for patient-centred approaches that consider the biopsychosocial dimensions of KOA care.

Data Availability

The anonymized quantitative dataset is available on request from the Local Committee for Biological and Medical Ethics at Umm Al-Qura University, contact (gssr@uqu.edu.sa). The qualitative transcripts cannot be shared publicly due to ethical restrictions, but illustrative excerpts are provided in the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Osteoarthritis: A Serious Disease, Submitted to the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Oarsi; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, Hochberg MC, Oatis C, Guyatt G, Block J, et al. 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(2):220–33. doi: 10.1002/art.41142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cui A, Li H, Wang D, Zhong J, Chen Y, Lu H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;29–30:100587. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Althomali OW, Amin J, Acar T, Shahanawaz S, Talal Abdulrahman A, Alnagar DK, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia and associated modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors: a population-based cross-sectional study. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(5):728. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11050728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Makhdom AM, Bokhary OA. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia: a systematic literature review. J Musculoskeletal Surg Res. 2023;7:235–40. doi: 10.25259/jmsr_159_2023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bruyère O, Cooper C, Pelletier J-P, Maheu E, Rannou F, Branco J, et al. A consensus statement on the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis-From evidence-based medicine to the real-life setting. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45(4 Suppl):S3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fu K, Robbins SR, McDougall JJ. Osteoarthritis: the genesis of pain. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018;57(suppl_4):iv43–50. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Moseng T, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Battista S, Beckwée D, Boyadzhieva V, Conaghan PG, et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2024;83(6):730–40. doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-225041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, Arden NK, Bennell K, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(11):1578–89. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2019.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Osteoarthritis in over 16s: diagnosis and management (NG226). London: NICE; 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng226 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rogers J, Shepstone L, Dieppe P. Is osteoarthritis a systemic disorder of bone? Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(2):452–7. doi: 10.1002/art.20136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yu SP, Hunter DJ. Managing osteoarthritis. Aust Prescr 2015. doi: 10.1111/1751-486X.12178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Brosseau L, Taki J, Desjardins B, Thevenot O, Fransen M, Wells GA, et al. The Ottawa panel clinical practice guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis. Part three: aerobic exercise programs. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(5):612–24. doi: 10.1177/0269215517691085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ytterberg SR, Mahowald ML, Krug HE. Exercise for arthritis. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol. 1994;8(1):161–89. doi: 10.1016/s0950-3579(05)80230-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Juhl C, Christensen R, Roos EM, Zhang W, Lund H. Impact of exercise type and dose on pain and disability in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014;66(3):622–36. doi: 10.1002/art.38290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee: a Cochrane systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(24):1554–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Eckstrom E, Neukam S, Kalin L, Wright J. Physical activity and healthy aging. Clin Geriatr Med. 2020;36(4):671–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2020.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Willett M, Duda J, Gautrey C, Fenton S, Greig C, Rushton A. Effectiveness of behavioural change techniques in physiotherapy interventions to promote physical activity adherence in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e015833. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Qin J, Barbour KE, Nevitt MC, Helmick CG, Hootman JM, Murphy LB, et al. Objectively measured physical activity and risk of knee osteoarthritis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(2):277–83. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000001433 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Coste N, Guiguet-Auclair C, Gerbaud L, Pereira B, Berland P, Gay C, et al. Perceived barriers to and facilitators of physical activity in people with knee osteoarthritis: development of the evaluation of the perception of physical activity questionnaire. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63(3):202–8. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stevenson JD, Roach R. The benefits and barriers to physical activity and lifestyle interventions for osteoarthritis affecting the adult knee. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-7-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kanavaki AM, Rushton A, Efstathiou N, Alrushud A, Klocke R, Abhishek A, et al. Barriers and facilitators of physical activity in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e017042. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gay C, Chabaud A, Guilley E, Coudeyre E. Educating patients about the benefits of physical activity and exercise for their hip and knee osteoarthritis. Systematic literature review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;59(3):174–83. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alyami AH, Alswat MM, Omer IA, Ahmed MEH, Alshammari SH, Alsaggaf KW, et al. General population knowledge about osteoarthritis and its related risk factors in Jeddah Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2020;41(5):516–23. doi: 10.15537/smj.2020.5.25061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Alkalash SH, Alsyed AA, Alrashdi AA, Alqarni AS, Alessa MA, Alzubaidi HH, et al. Public knowledge of osteoarthritis in Al-Qunfudah Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e34892. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Scopaz KA, Piva SR, Wisniewski S, Fitzgerald GK. Relationships of fear, anxiety, and depression with physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(11):1866–73. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.06.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Somers TJ, Keefe FJ, Pells JJ, Dixon KE, Waters SJ, Riordan PA, et al. Pain catastrophizing and pain-related fear in osteoarthritis patients: relationships to pain and disability. J Pain Symp Manage. 2009;37(5):863–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zheng S, Tu L, Cicuttini F, Zhu Z, Han W, Antony B, et al. Depression in patients with knee osteoarthritis: risk factors and associations with joint symptoms. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03875-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Abd Elhamid YA, Elazkalany GS, Niazy MH, Afifi AY. Anxiety and depression in primary knee osteoarthritis patients: are they related to clinical features and radiographic changes? Reumatologia. 2024;62(6):421–9. doi: 10.5114/reum/195120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hinman RS, Lawford BJ, Campbell PK, Briggs AM, Gale J, Bills C, et al. Telephone-delivered exercise advice and behavior change support by physical therapists for people with knee osteoarthritis: protocol for the telecare randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2017;97(5):524–36. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bala K, Bavoria S, Sahni B, Bhagat P, Langeh S, Sobti S. Prevalence, risk factors, and health seeking behavior for knee osteoarthritis among adult population in rural Jammu - a community based cross sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(10):5282–7. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_643_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Juby AG, Skeith K, Davis P. Patients’ awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with treatment modalities for the management of their osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2005;24(5):535–8. doi: 10.1007/s10067-005-1102-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Subahi M. An evaluation of physical fitness and physical activity to support therapeutic exercise prescription for individuals with knee osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia: a mixed-methods study. Cardiff University; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Albert FA, Crowe MJ, Malau-Aduli AEO, Malau-Aduli BS. Physical activity promotion: a systematic review of the perceptions of healthcare professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4358. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Al-Abbad HM, Al-Haidary HM. The perception of physical therapy leaders in Saudi Arabia regarding physical therapy scope of practice in primary health care. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(1):112–7. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Selten EM, Vriezekolk JE, Geenen R, van der Laan WH, van der Meulen-Dilling RG, Nijhof MW, et al. Reasons for treatment choices in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a qualitative study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(9):1260–7. doi: 10.1002/acr.22841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shannon-Baker P. Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2016;10(4):319–34. doi: 10.1177/1558689815575861 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Noble H, Heale R. Triangulation in research, with examples. Evid Based Nurs. 2019;22(3):67–8. doi: 10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) – Short and Long Forms. Ipaq; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Helou K, El Helou N, Mahfouz M, Mahfouz Y, Salameh P, Harmouche-Karaki M. Validity and reliability of an adapted arabic version of the long international physical activity questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2017;18(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4599-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:115. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ács P, Betlehem J, Oláh A, Bergier J, Melczer C, Prémusz V, et al. Measurement of public health benefits of physical activity: validity and reliability study of the international physical activity questionnaire in Hungary. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(Suppl 1):1198. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08508-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mehta SP, Jarvis A, Standifer D, Warnimont C. International physical activity questionnaire. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;30(2):125–7. doi: 10.1615/critrevphysrehabilmed.2018026180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–95. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Al-Nozha MM, Al-Hazzaa HM, Arafah MR, Al-Khadra A, Al-Mazrou YY, Al-Maatouq MA. Prevalence of physical activity and inactivity among Saudis aged 30-70 years: a population-based cross-sectional study. Saudi Med J. 2007. doi: 10.15537/smj.2007.6.20060992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Al-Hazzaa HM, AlMarzooqi MA. Descriptive analysis of physical activity initiatives for health promotion in Saudi Arabia. Front Public Health. 2018;6:329. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Alghamdi MK, Elhefny MA, Basamih KA, AlSulami MA, Amodi NO, Algahwaji EJ, et al. The public’s knowledge of osteoarthritis and its related risk factors in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35457. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fusch PI, Ness LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. Encyclopedia of critical psychology. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Williamson K, Given LM, Scifleet P. Qualitative data analysis. Research Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts. 2nd Ed. 2018. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102220-7.00019-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Connelly LM. Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Medsurg Nurs. 2016;25(6):435–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE publications Ltd.; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gay C, Eschalier B, Levyckyj C, Bonnin A, Coudeyre E. Motivators for and barriers to physical activity in people with knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative study. Joint Bone Spine. 2018;85(4):481–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Al-Hazzaa HM. Physical inactivity in Saudi Arabia revisited: a systematic review of inactivity prevalence and perceived barriers to active living. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2018;12(6):50–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dobson F, Bennell KL, French SD, Nicolson PJA, Klaasman RN, Holden MA, et al. Barriers and facilitators to exercise participation in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: synthesis of the literature using behavior change theory. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95(5):372–89. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ariani A, Manara M, Fioravanti A, Iannone F, Salaffi F, Ughi N, et al. The Italian Society for Rheumatology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis. Reumatismo. 2019;71(S1):5–21. doi: 10.4081/reumatismo.2019.1188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Al Salim ZA. Barriers to physical activity participation among university students in Saudi Arabia. Inf Sci Lett. 2023;12:353–60. doi: 10.18576/isl/120130 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Almaqhawi A. Perceived barriers and facilitators of physical activity among Saudi Arabian females living in the East Midlands. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2021;17(3):384–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Domiziano Tarantino

20 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Subahi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

Reviewer #6: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: I Don't Know

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Major concern

• Lack of Theoretical Framework, Research Paradigm, and Researcher Positionality

The qualitative component does not clearly state the underlying theoretical framework or research paradigm guiding the analysis (e.g., constructivist, interpretivist). This omission limits understanding of the epistemological stance taken in the study. Additionally, while the authors briefly mention that reflexivity was maintained, they do not provide a clear account of researcher positionality—such as their professional backgrounds, potential biases, or their influence on data collection and interpretation. These elements are essential for ensuring transparency, credibility, and rigor in qualitative research and should be explicitly reported, ideally with reference to qualitative reporting standards (e.g., COREQ).

• Sample Size Justification and Generalizability

The manuscript does not provide a justification for the sample sizes used in either the quantitative (n = 60) or qualitative (n = 24) components. No power analysis or reference to prior research is provided to support the adequacy of the quantitative sample.

• Integration of Findings

The mixed-methods integration could be strengthened by more explicitly linking quantitative and qualitative results. For instance, connecting illustrative quotes to participants’ physical activity classifications would improve the depth of interpretation and the alignment between datasets.

• Limited Analytical Depth in Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative component is restricted to descriptive statistics. Incorporating inferential analyses (e.g., exploring relationships between physical activity levels and demographic or treatment variables) would enhance the rigor and clinical relevance of the findings.

Recommendation: Major Revision

The study addresses a relevant topic, but key methodological issues—particularly in qualitative framework with paradigm used, sample justification, and data integration—need to be addressed before it is suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: inconsistent capitalization in themes

misses recent global guidelines on OA management (e.g., NICE, EULAR 2023 updates)

There is no justification for the sample size—especially the choice of 60 for IPAQ, which could affect statistical validity

Please try clearer alignment between each qualitative theme and corresponding quantitative data

Reviewer #3: What was the reason for conducting your mixed methods study?

Explain the order of quantitative and qualitative stages of the study.

Did you take any specific action or was it just a descriptive study?

Was the quantitative instrument validated and reliable?

Was sample size determined for the quantitative part of the study?

Do not repeat the data in the table in the text.

A table of participant characteristics should be provided.

Please indicate which participant the quotations were from.

The discussion needs serious reinforcement. Compare the study results with similar studies.

Reviewer #4: Dear authors,

Your article finds the scope and aim of Plos One, offering a concise and comprehensive overview of knee OA.

I appreciate your work and would like to recommend improving the following aspect that could be refined in your manuscript PONE-D-25-20426.

Abstract

a. Please insert demographic information – these are critical for understanding the study context and allow generalizability (rows 20, 21).

b. Also, the setting and recruitment strategy are not mentioned in the abstract.

Introduction

a) I suggest including in this section prevalence data and etiology.

b) Since the topic focuses either on emotional distress, I recommend inserting in this section how KOA affects the subject and which areas are influenced by this pathology (eg, anxiety, fear, lower confidence, etc).

c) It is a poor understanding of the link that was used between education level and awareness of OA- row 62-57. I suggest reformulation, because the current phrasing doesn’t draw a direct connection that reflects “these studies highlight the need for targeted education campaigns, public lectures, and other methods to enhance community knowledge about knee OA”- row 68-69.

d) I highly recommend you also study this recent research: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14111379, https://doi.org/10.3390/life15050721, https://doi.org/10.3390/app14072886

,Materials and Methods

The study design and setting are well-structured.

Please take into consideration the recommendation about the Participants section:

a. How was the selection method for the 60 subjects?- row 108. Please mentioned.

b. I strongly suggest reorganizing this section to improve flow and clarity. For example, row 111 constitutes an additional inclusion criterion: a subject with OA who had at least 6 months of therapy. Immediately afterward, the text shifts to information about the qualitative component, which is interrupted by details about the exclusion criteria. Subsequently, information about the qualitative participants is presented again.

Please take into consideration the recommendation about the Quantitative Data Collection:

a. Since the abbreviation is IPAQ-sf, please add the full name of the tool “-Short Form”- row 129

b. Please describe the unit and formula of METS- min/ week- row 130.

c. I suggest inserting “PA level” 131-132, close to “as having low”- row 130, to ensure accuracy of information.

d. Are there some gaps in the intervals of interpretation?

≤438 METS min/week= low PA;

1100–3500 METS-min/week = moderate PA;

>4500 METS-min/week= high PA.

What happens when the patient registers values that are between these ranges? E.g., 439 and 1099 or 3501 and 4500?

Please take into consideration the recommendation about the Qualitative Data Collection:

a. Please avoid the repetition- row 137-138 and 142-142.

b. Please mention who did the translation from Arabic to English.

Additionally, please specify who conducted the interview and how the bias was mitigated.

c. The ideal for this type of study design was to use a standard questionnaire. For instance, I strongly recommend adding sourcing that supports the claim that the interview guide was based on literature, as noted in row 138.

Please take into consideration the recommendation about the Data Analysis:

a. Please add details about descriptive statistics to inform readers better (eg, means, medians, SD).

b. Please mention the version of NVivo software.

Please consider adding sources that support the trustworthiness, rows 167-177. To support this, I suggest adding references that demonstrate the reliability and validity of the COREQ and IPAQ-SF. Additionally, please provide clarity on this paragraph by adding information that addresses the following question: a) How were the qualitative themes triangulated with quantitative data? Was it through comparison, integration, or cross-validation?

Result- quantitative results

a. Suggest adding min- max – row 185;

b. Before categorizing the type of obesity (row 196), I strongly suggest inserting the BMI values in the materials and methods.

c. Regarding the Physical activity level- please be more specific with the number of participants who demonstrated moderate or high PA level- rows 209-210.

Result- qualitative results

a. Please add references to support the affirmation inserted in rows 222-227.

b. Please ensure that results support the statement inserted in rows 232- 238. How was the correlation made?

For example, patients who receive tailored education about OA reported confidence in their ability to manage symptoms, which results support this statement. And so on.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative results

A strong mixed-methods article must include statistical analysis to support and validate the quantitative part. Statistical results do not support the correlations.

1. Ahmed, Amina & Pereira, Lucas & Jane, Kimberly. (2024). Mixed Methods Research: Combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Also, since it is mentioned that it was used the Triangulation Design- according to “This design is used when a researcher wants to compare and contrast quantitative statistical results with qualitative findings directly or to validate or expand quantitative results with qualitative data”.

2. John W. Creswell, Vicki L. Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Chapter 4.

Discution

The Discussion section lacks references.

General recommendations:

1. Replacing OA, which is the general term for osteoarthritis, with KOA.

2. Improving the Introduction, Method and Materials, Discussion section- adding references to support findings.

3. Include statistical analysis to support and validate the quantitative part.

4. The text must be improved in English.

Reviewer #5: Manuscript Title: Exploring Physical Activity and Patient Perceptions in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Mixed-Methods Study

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-20426

An excellent sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of physical activity levels and patient opinions of knee osteoarthritis (OA) management in Saudi Arabia is presented in this publication. Because it focuses on a Middle Eastern population, the study is methodologically sound, ethically appropriate, and contextually meaningful. Both quantitative and qualitative data are well integrated. Small changes are required to improve data openness, clarify methods, and focus the conversation.

Introduction:

1. Novelty could be more clearly distinguished from previous mixed-methods studies in OA.

Methodology:

1. The cutoff for “low activity” (≤438 MET-min/week) using IPAQ-SF is non-standard. Please clarify and cite validation studies for this threshold.

2. A sample size justification for the quantitative phase (n=60) is missing.

Results and Data Presentation

1. Table formatting (Table 1, Table 2) should be cleaned for clarity and consistency.

2. Avoid duplicating large blocks of quotes in both Table 3 and the Results section – summarize selectively.

Discussion:

1. Potential gender-based insights, given equal male/female participation, are not discussed.

Data Availability

Current statement ("data available on request") does not meet PLOS ONE’s data availability policy. Authors must deposit data in a public repository or provide detailed justification for restrictions.

Reference:

Ensure full and consistent formatting (some DOIs and titles are not uniform).

Reviewer #6: The study addresses an important gap in understanding physical activity levels and patient perceptions in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the Saudi Arabian context. The mixed-methods approach is well-justified and enhances the depth of findings. However there are some points needed to modify: 1.Self-Report Bias:

The reliance on self-reported physical activity (IPAQ-sf) may introduce recall bias.

- Suggestion: Triangulate with objective measures (e.g., accelerometers) in future research. Lack of Longitudinal Data The cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences about barriers and activity levels.

- Suggestion: Propose longitudinal studies to track changes over time.

2.Thematic Analysis Depth:

While themes are well-identified, deeper exploration of subthemes (e.g., specific misconceptions about OA) could enrich the qualitative findings.

- Suggestion: Include more direct quotes to illustrate nuances.

3.Data Availability:

The statement "Data available on request from the author" is insufficient for reproducibility.

- Suggestion: Deposit anonymized data in a public repository or provide a detailed access protocol.

4.Structural Clarity:

- The "Discussion" could better align themes with existing literature (e.g., compare findings to global studies on OA barriers).

- Suggestion: Reorganize the discussion to first recap key findings, then compare to prior work, and finally state implications.

Grammar/Clarity:

- Page 8, Line 15: "Physical activity is a foundation of osteoarthritis management" → "Physical activity is foundational to osteoarthritis management."

- Page 26, Line 422: "Integrating PA-level assessment with qualitative insights offers a robust understanding" → "Integrating physical activity assessments with qualitative insights provides a robust understanding."

Reviewer #7: Comments:

1-The conclusions presented in both the abstract and main text suggest that tailored interventions can “significantly improve” adherence to physical activity and “overall quality of life.” While the qualitative findings do highlight perceived barriers and facilitators, no outcome data (e.g., adherence, functional gains, or quality of life) were directly measured in the study. These statements should be revised to reflect the study's actual scope—i.e., exploring perceptions and reported physical activity levels—rather than implying causal or outcome-based effects.

2-The term “low physical activity” is appropriately defined using IPAQ thresholds, but the phrase “critically low” in the abstract and discussion requires clarification. It suggests a clinical severity or risk threshold, yet the study does not report on associated health outcomes. The term should either be clearly defined or replaced with a more neutral description.

Similarly, the use of “tailored interventions” throughout the manuscript implies a level of design or testing that is not part of this study. It should be clear that such interventions are recommended based on findings, not assessed directly.

3- tthe manuscript occasionally uses phrases such as “evaluate physical activity levels and patient experiences,” which may be misread as a longitudinal or intervention study. Clarifying that this is a cross-sectional, exploratory, perception-based study would improve accuracy.

4-Demographic findings, such as BMI, education level, and gender, are presented in the Results section but are not meaningfully discussed in relation to the study’s main findings. For example, does BMI correlate with perceptions of mobility barriers? Did educational level affect awareness of physical therapy benefits? If these data were not explored, the demographic summary should be clearly described as contextual rather than implying analytic weight.

5-The discussion emphasizes “general” implications for OA care, but the study is conducted in a single country with a culturally specific population. The findings around prayer, family involvement, and community misconceptions are highly context-bound. The authors should temper generalizations and clarify that these insights may not be transferable to other settings without cultural adaptation.

6-The concluding statement—“addressing barriers through tailored interventions…can significantly improve adherence and quality of life”—goes beyond what this descriptive study supports. No interventions were tested, nor were changes in quality of life measured.

Example of alternative: “Our findings suggest that addressing barriers through culturally sensitive, patient-centred strategies may support increased physical activity engagement among individuals with knee OA.”

7- The final sentence would benefit from clearer structure. Suggest: “Our findings underscore the importance of addressing these barriers through patient-centred education and improved access to physical therapy.”

8- Methods: Please clarify how saturation was determined in the qualitative study. Was a formal stopping rule or documentation strategy used?

9- This manuscript provides important insights into perceived barriers to physical activity among individuals with knee OA in Saudi Arabia using a robust mixed-methods design. However, the conclusions currently overstate the implications of the findings, and clarification is needed around terminology, scope, and potential biases.

10- The manuscript should clearly state that the “perceptions and awareness” were only qualitatively assessed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Ahmed Ibrahim Al Kharusi

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Dan Iulian Alexe

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes:  Fawaz Alrasheedi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-20426.docx

pone.0336663.s001.docx (15.4KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewr Comments on -PONE-D-25-20426-.pdf

pone.0336663.s002.pdf (946.5KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Nov 13;20(11):e0336663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336663.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Sep 2025

We sincerely thank the Academic Editor and Reviewers for their constructive feedback. We have carefully revised our manuscript in response to all comments. Attached a detailed, point-by-point response, with changes highlighted in the revised manuscript and page/line numbers indicated.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0336663.s004.docx (34.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Domiziano Tarantino

29 Oct 2025

Exploring Physical Activity and Patient Perceptions in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Mixed-Methods Study

PONE-D-25-20426R1

Dear Dr. Subahi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Domiziano Tarantino, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all previous comments and provided clear revisions throughout the manuscript. The responses are comprehensive, and the updated version has improved clarity and flow. I have no further concerns and believe the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #3: In order to check the application of reviewers' opinions, Changes made are highlighted or made with track changes.

Reviewer #4: I have no further comments. Thank you to the authors for their effort in responding to my recommendations and observations.

Good luck

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed abd if the other reviewers accept the paper, it's ready for publication l.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Dan Iulian Alexe

Reviewer #6: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Domiziano Tarantino

PONE-D-25-20426R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Subahi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Domiziano Tarantino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-20426.docx

    pone.0336663.s001.docx (15.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewr Comments on -PONE-D-25-20426-.pdf

    pone.0336663.s002.pdf (946.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0336663.s004.docx (34.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The anonymized quantitative dataset is available on request from the Local Committee for Biological and Medical Ethics at Umm Al-Qura University, contact (gssr@uqu.edu.sa). The qualitative transcripts cannot be shared publicly due to ethical restrictions, but illustrative excerpts are provided in the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES